On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 02:45:00PM -0700, Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 14:24 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > Anyway, why is it better for bisecting? > > > > Because to help developers not have to do: > > > > git branch -m poo > > git checkout -b master origin/master > > # Then apply patches manually > > > > Instead of the better rebasing: > > > > git branch -m save-my-stuff > > git checkout -b master origin/master > > git checkout save-my-stuff > > git rebase master > > I use STGit, so perhaps I miss all that fun. I have never had any > trouble tracking wireless-testing while keeping my patches.
Oh this was a long time ago, pre ath5k I think. > > john reverts his patches on wireless-testing before rebasing to Linus' > > tree. There may be some other added benefit other than helping us > > rebase cleanly, not sure. But I do remember before that I never was > > able to rebase my patches, and now rebasing works quite nicely. > > You mean it's better to track wireless-next-2.6 for those of us trying > to stay on top of the wireless development? No, not at all, I meant wireless-next-2.6 is best for bisecting. wireless-testing is indeed the place to look at for development. > I must have missed the > memo. I don't think we ever really publized this much, because technically the reverting won't happen unless John rebases and typically between rebases to a next RC kernel you *could* technically bisect an issue. But not all the times. > Indeed, wireless-next-2.6 has a couple of commits that > wireless-testing doesn't have yet. > > I agree that having to bisect through reverts is not fun, and it takes > one or two extra iterations. Right, which is why I wanted to mention it, will extend the info on the wiki on the development section once John ACKs/NACKs this. Luis _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
