From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B760A0501; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:20:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B9541614; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:20:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-oa1-f45.google.com (mail-oa1-f45.google.com [209.85.160.45]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F6041611 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:20:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-oa1-f45.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-df22f50e0cso18209547fac.3 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:20:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ygp1irJBUSEe5zCJYSrXnHQZYR59V7PFOH1pTMii4Ik=; b=OWTnvi5xC/6dqi80EMXcBTGRtDFZ+c5WQsivEfL39lgjSuWn669SLw3ROAr3Ym1ZC7 Oa9XdPQ8TFGS+RH9dMNsEEL0B29XfFZOfybp+tjKFzfmTqsLmke71rQQYW2IB3ESFtrK PxKT4C45k32L/6FtjP2KQiAeRL8Ca85bhz6bg= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ygp1irJBUSEe5zCJYSrXnHQZYR59V7PFOH1pTMii4Ik=; b=NL+8aO/6sXuiOcC5jln+wDbHPhyh5vCDc/oU549py7PsLr2pWqvG+u39pJ5WCNKVIF ODu15bQEFSzbGxRutDso+G/4PNhCioJFqVskgmpzj1y0g7Wfe9YeKP/yKuQDv8WlgAq1 i1NNQihPk6sRbjM63vmKQ2mekPJ5Gl2v4hh9rDXWSuzHCXUKoLSalnzoGA2Fu7qeDbXJ U3ibbbJAPQM3i+4V0Qo5VDqkq0yfYnPs750qq4oNI/LxtXOlmUBAbas5ML457AQJm8YF tJvj3CoYm4sJD96YYLG2sjVZvs/KT8CtjhVR4q6+q+Zm8iafYvhb4x/FiVjjlv1rRzqY 4Ysg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531YELu35tzZ+BoNLa3xM4lRUjCmCKG4H5d29N830jtE6U+fZBXt KkJMICLG5zz7dZU5jaYI84zzBDyhqzlFhX0AnTclTQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz1IsvQiLleZn2zVA8AhSdoQDA3wFuMwIpT1he7RbTHjBHNjwYI5vLJDHDdMyynGYD7JYhuNO6kUWosWX9sVOk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:e244:b0:e2:d03a:41e1 with SMTP id d4-20020a056870e24400b000e2d03a41e1mr257130oac.19.1649701246188; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:20:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220406145606.2913834-1-juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech> <44577792.fMDQidcC6G@thomas> <70e5d09edf9048d49235108d7548d686@pantheon.tech> In-Reply-To: From: Owen Hilyard Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 14:20:10 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/15] merge DTS core files to DPDK To: Honnappa Nagarahalli Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Juraj_Linke=C5=A1?= , "thomas@monjalon.net" , Jerin Jacob , David Marchand , "Tu, Lijuan" , dpdk-dev , nd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c3d58b05dc65004a" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org --000000000000c3d58b05dc65004a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > 3) In my private discussions with David Marchand, he expressed interest > in getting the git log history. The current review process will not help in > this regard. Is this a must? If yes, are there any known methods to do this? The git docs point to https://github.com/newren/git-filter-repo/, since apparently git filter-branch is full of footguns. From there, I would follow an example from Ruby, https://gist.github.com/x-yuri/9890ab1079cf4357d6f269d073fd9731, which was merging two reasonably-sized tooling repos. Instead of using git merge, we would be using git rebase. I did it locally to try it out, and it does have to replay the ENTIRE git history of dts. This means whoever does it may want to grab a server and do the rebase in /run. This would also mean that we would have to bypass the mailing list, since sending out more than 32000 emails doesn't seem reasonable. Possibly just a patch with the script to run to do the rebase instead of putting all the patches on the mailing list? Doing this would also probably mean all of our work would be in the DTS repo until we are ready to merge. That might make it harder to review changes to DTS in small parts. --000000000000c3d58b05dc65004a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=C2=A03)= In my private discussions with David Marchand, he expressed interest in ge= tting the git log history. The current review process will not help in this= regard. Is this a must? If yes, are there any known methods to do this?

The git docs point to=C2=A0https://github.com/newren/git-filter-r= epo/, since apparently git filter-branch is full of footguns.=C2=A0 Fro= m there, I would follow an example from Ruby,=C2=A0https://gist.github.com= /x-yuri/9890ab1079cf4357d6f269d073fd9731, which was merging two reasona= bly-sized tooling repos. Instead of using git merge, we would be using git = rebase. I did it locally to try it out, and it does have to replay the ENTI= RE git history of dts. This means whoever does it may want to grab a server= and do the rebase in /run. This would also mean that we would have to bypa= ss the mailing list, since sending out more than 32000 emails doesn't s= eem reasonable. Possibly just a patch with the script to run to do the reba= se instead of putting all the patches on the mailing list?

Doing this would also probably mean all of our work would be in th= e DTS repo until we are ready to merge. That might make it harder to review= changes to DTS in small parts.
--000000000000c3d58b05dc65004a--