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

[Eric Anholt]

Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

I don't believe bisect will pick commits on addrlib if good and bad were
both on master.

I've used this git structure for maintaining GL xml files in libepoxy,
and it's really nice.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20171108/4bec132b/attachment-0001.sig>