Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 13:08:59 +0200 From: Martin Matuska <mm@FreeBSD.org> To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ulrich_Sp=c3=b6rlein?= <uqs@freebsd.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Mateusz Guzik <mjg@freebsd.org>, Ryan Moeller <freqlabs@freebsd.org>, Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>, freebsd-git <freebsd-git@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: OpenZFS branch tracking policy Message-ID: <da88bd06-7e79-3d2c-38ee-84424a3cef1d@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <YHQMru4/ay8lINSk@acme.spoerlein.net> References: <21c7313e-315c-ec48-9437-e0a3d4ec14d2@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfopOxm-HTYkVPHkEweHw-F%2BA9mk3Vv26x4t3MEAVEd2gQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPyFy2DS=nsE3-JQdqQC797xQhAiBACkuyA%2BcxkcRY0yeB_6=w@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfoPm0tfDpBTU8ORy-_Oa-tkiNX0_MeAdJn0T5ZJdQe6MQ@mail.gmail.com> <41924e9d-9d61-6646-6c8f-e4458f94296e@FreeBSD.org> <30f529c1-6087-e704-8cc7-0c48a40b7430@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfp3EJ%2BbrNM02Sfzu_Y42VDEADiApFaX0V9bu_jb5NWd4w@mail.gmail.com> <f8d7a7f3-63a2-434f-054c-fadb9131cf82@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfoPzNFSp2sW94Ken=u7DstHL_BWFmjV5MBD4cRBo3t_Uw@mail.gmail.com> <9679ec9d-4916-92b7-ff70-0050d699875c@FreeBSD.org> <YHQMru4/ay8lINSk@acme.spoerlein.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
If we keep the "old way" than I have an additional question: Wouldn't a "git cherry-pick -Xsubtree=sys/contrib/openzfs" from the vendor branch be a better way to go than "git merge -Xsubtree=sys/contrib/openzfs"? Especially for stable/13, where I have to "merge" in the whole new vendor/openzfs/zfs-2.1-release branch. mm On 12. 4. 2021 11:02, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: > On Sun, 2021-04-11 at 01:03:30 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote: >> Thank you for your comments, Warner. >> >> What I would like to know is the timing - how much time do we need to >> resolve the issues. I can pull in the OpenZFS code up to commit >> 3522f57b6 the "old" way. This is the last commit common to master and >> zfs-2.1-release and can be cherry-picked to stable/13 the "old" way. >> This will keep our code on par with openzfs-2.1-rc1 (rc2 is out now) and >> I can add a 2-week MFC for stable/13 as usual but there are no >> significant changes at all. After that we need to split main and >> stable/13 and ideally move to direct tracking of OpenZFS. >> >> I have added some comments below. > > I think we should continue with the old way of squashing vendor > changes in, for the main reason of bloat and slowdown for our users. > Note that unlike SVN, a regular user who builds world will clone all > of the git repo including all history. We have many more users than we > have developers working on contrib software, so the slight convenience > of a few FreeBSD devs comes at the cost of the majority of our users. :( > > I understand the confusion of a broken `git blame` and I'm wondering > if it wouldn't be enough for the folks that want this to fetch the > full OpenZFS repo into their FreeBSD repo. Then when the need arises > to `git blame foo/bar.c` they see an "unhelpful" commit that says > "upstream 01234abcdef was merged" upon which you can run `git blame > 01234abcdef -- foo/bar.c` (paths will be different but it all can be > hidden behind some script and git alias). > > Would that ease enough of the developers pain? > > I wish more stuff would move into ports (llvm, lldb) for reasons of > size also. > > Cheers > Ulihome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?da88bd06-7e79-3d2c-38ee-84424a3cef1d>