Re: [dpdk-dev] git trees organization

["Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>]

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 4:18 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 
> 14/09/2017 11:03, Bruce Richardson:
>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:22:23AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 14/09/2017 04:25, Stephen Hemminger:
>>>> Bisecting a tree with lots of subtree merges is terrible. That is why Linus
>>>> rebases and doesn't directly take linux-next
>>> 
>>> I agree, bisecting with subtree merges is not pleasant at all.
>>> That's why I chose the rebase method until now.
>>> 
>>> Adrien mentioned some drawbacks with the rebase method.
>>> Ferruh mentioned some drawbacks and some advantages of rebase.
>>> Stephen mentioned another advantage of rebase.
>>> Such decisions are really difficult.
>>> One thing is sure: there will be always someone unhappy,
>>> no matter the decision :)
>>> 
>>> When we want to take such decision or re-consider it,
>>> we ask the techboard to vote...
>> 
>> I'm not sure the techboard needs to vote on this, this is an issue for
>> the tree maintainers/committers is it not? If you do want techboard
>> input on this, I suggest the committers come to an agreement among
>> themselves, with community input, and then just look for tech board to
>> ratify it.
> 
> No, it is an issue for everybody.
> Rebase makes tracking of subtrees difficult for developpers.
> Merge makes reading and bisecting difficult for developpers.
> We cannot have an agreement in the community because both arguments
> are valid.

It seems to me the lesser of the two evils is rebase, but I have not used bisect much. I would think we pick rebase and see how it goes as I know merging can be a bit of a problem. We can always pick merge later if we find a specific issue we need to fix or bisect. I know it is not ideal, but we need to pick one and move on.

> 
> I add that merge can slow down subtree integration if a change is needed.
> From my point of view, it is OK as it is currently.
> 
> It is maybe as difficult as choosing between vim and emacs ;)
> (although it seems crazy to use emacs)

What Emacs does everything for you even writes your code for you, that is why I use vim and visual studio code to write my programs just so I feel useful and not replaced by Emacs :-)



Regards,
Keith