Re: [git patches] 2.6.x net driver updates

Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:

quoted

Please pull the 'for-linus' branch from

rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git

Is this really what you meant to do? There's seven merges there, none of
which have _any_ information about _what_ you merged, because you've mixed
everything up in one tree, so that there's absolutely no record of the
fact that you actually had seven different repositories that you pulled..

That sucks, Jeff.

I don't understand why you don't use different trees, like you did with
BK. You can share the object directory with the different trees, but the
way you work now, it all looks like mush.

Even if you don't get confused youself, you sure are confusing everybody 
else with it..

You are getting precisely the same thing you got under BitKeeper:  pull 
from X, you get my tree, which was composed from $N repositories.  The 
tree you pull was created by my running 'bk pull' locally $N times.

Ultimately, you appear to be complaining about:

* your own git-pull-script, which doesn't record the $2 (branch) 
argument in the commit message.

* the fact that my changelog includes the merge csets that were 
present-but-invisible by my BitKeeper submissions.  i.e. I lack a 
shortlog that filters out merge csets.

Anyway, if you really want to work this way, with one big mushed-together
thing that has different heads that you keep track of, can you _please_ at
least make the commit message tell what you're doing. It's not a complex 

Hey, I didn't write git-pull-script, I just use it :)

script, and you're definitely mis-using it as things stand now by 
switching heads around inside one repository, and not telling other people 
about it.

Switching heads around?  It sounds like you did not pull from the branch 
I mentioned.  This is how git-pull-script pulls from a branch:

git-pull-script \
rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git\
  refs/heads/for-linus

	Jeff