On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08.11.2017 09:53, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>
>> On 07/11/17 10:58 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaeh...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 07.11.2017 18:35, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07/11/17 06:28 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch is too large for the mailing list:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~mareko/mesa/commit/?h=addrlib&id=0e0f044268d3c1af2e78f161aaa2d92c30167cc1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From the commit log:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just overwrote all Mesa files with internal addrlib and discarded
>>>>>> hunks that we should probably keep, but I might have missed something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, if a separate branch was used for importing addrlib changes, Git
>>>>> could keep track of our changes to it in the Mesa tree.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I concur in principle. In practice, I explored doing that, but the
>>>> commit
>>>> discipline on the internal addrlib repository is pretty crappy, so we'd
>>>> end
>>>> up having to massage commits anyway. Maybe we can find a sweet spot
>>>> somewhere by updating slightly more regularly, perhaps once a month.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's too much time-consuming work with no benefit. I used to do
>>> that, but it sucked. I prefer 1 commit with everything - easy conflict
>>> resolution, not having to rebase 60 commits that don't make sense.
>>
>>
>> FWIW, I didn't mean importing individual commits of the addrlib
>> repository into Mesa. Just having a separate branch[0] where addrlib
>> snapshots are imported and which is then merged to master. That way Git
>> will keep track of changes in both repositories and automatically merge
>> them as much as possible. Just using Git for what it was made for. :)
>
>
> What do you mean precisely? I did some experiments with a structure like
> this:
>
> Mesa master o--o--o--o--o--o--o
> / /
> addrlib o--o--o--o--------o
>
> where addrlib is a branch that *only* contains addrlib and has a completely
> separate initial commit. This works somewhat reasonably, except I was
> worried that it might break bisecting Mesa by trying some of the commits
> that only exist in the addrlib branch.
>
> Though now that I think about it again, maybe bisecting is fine because none
> of the addrlib commits are ever in the "future cone" of any Mesa master
> commit.
If you want to avoid some of the merge pain without creating a totally
separate universe, why not do something like
addrlib o----o--------o
/ \ \
Mesa master o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o
Just a thought.
-ilia
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
