-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Somebody in the thread at some point said: > Andy Green wrote: >> The structure doesn't persist in our output for upstream: unless I >> misunderstood your whole point there about dismembering the patches. > > That's true, but then upstream doesn't really need our internal > structure. After all, they expect us to keep continuing to maintain > our code ;-)
They would expect it, but they also expect to have oversight of what is going on... as you say later gta02-core.patch isn't really that, its a freaking bomb. They really want a trickle of patches over time they can digest without choking to death, not the "mochipatch" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mochi > Yes, but the question is whether we'd actually be able to do that. > Just imagine trying to extract out per-feature patches from a "flat" > tree. That would be an insane amount of extremely boring and > error-prone manual work, even worse than the incremental splitting, > since the splitting happens at least always at the surface. Absolutely, but I am not thinking about the flat tree, it would be insane. I'm thinking about patch transformation out of git in the kind of way patchutils enables -- sort of "patch domain arithmetic": http://cyberelk.net/tim/software/patchutils/ if we effectively marked up the tree like stuff in /arch/arm/kernel is one kind of patch, stuff in /arch/arm/mach-s3c2440 is another and so on maybe there is a way through it all that gets you the mokopatch effect synthesized without the work. - -Andy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHo3AyOjLpvpq7dMoRAjHrAJ0bbwtUAmn6P4AV/8ZYU4j9AgkRcACggucz HKev8DVROBKHvqQmwMPkBZE= =cZUi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
