> Quoting Arthur Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: [ofa-general] ANNOUNCE ofed backports for 2.6.22 kernel bits > > hi michael, ... > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:09:09PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Quoting Arthur Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Subject: Re: [ofa-general] ANNOUNCE ofed backports for 2.6.22 kernel bits > > > > > > hi michael, ... > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:03:41AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > But I also see a serious problem with addressing: basically > > > > git tracks content. It's not designed to track a bush > > > > of branches taken together. For example, take tagging: > > > > tag namespace is global, so you can not have the same > > > > tag point at multiple branches at the same time. > > > > > > agreed. however, the way we use git, with the > > > location of the git DB as the "tag", it's not > > > really a problem in practice. > > > > who uses git this way? > > i do. > > > > but tagging each > > > branch separately is indeed a PITA... > > > > This is just one problem. > > For example, git pull can only merge one branch at a time. > > how is this a problem? the way i use git, > i use a script to "reflow" the changes into > the dependent branches. over the last few > months, anyway, it has worked fine...
Precisely because no one developed on these branches, so you are re-generating themfrom patches - not a problem, but as you point out not too useful either. If people start developing on these branches, then eventually you will need to merge them - and git only merges them one at a time. -- MST _______________________________________________ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg