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

[Nicolai Hähnle]

On 08.11.2017 23:54, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> If you want to avoid some of the merge pain without creating a totally
> separate universe, why not do something like
> 
>    addrlib             o----o--------o
>                       /      \        \
>    Mesa master o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o
                     ^                    ^
A bisect between the two indicated commits might end up picking commits 
on the addrlib branch.

Since Eric has positive experience with the setup with completely 
disjoint histories, I think it's something we should seriously consider.

Cheers,
Nicolai

> 
> Just a thought.



> 
>    -ilia
> 


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