[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] amd/addrlib: update to latest version

[Nicolai Hähnle]

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 <nhaehnle at 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.


 > [0] Note that the separate branch doesn't need to exist in any shared
 > repository, it can always be re-created from the history of the last 
merge.

How would that work? Possibly if we take a note in the addrlib commit 
message what the import source was, but that does seem a bit fragile to 
me and it would still mean that `git merge' can't be used because the 
history is not represented in the commit graph.

Cheers,
Nicolai
-- 
Lerne, wie die Welt wirklich ist,
Aber vergiss niemals, wie sie sein sollte.