On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 04:33:31PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 05:00:15PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > quilt is not even in the ball park. I am not sure it can play > > the same ball game, even. I would love to see anyone try to convince > > Linus how quilt would make the kernel code easier to deal with than git > > does (advance notice so I can bring pop corn would be appreciated). > Andrew Morton uses (or used, I don't know if it's changed) quilt to manage > releases of the linux kernel. He apparently refuses (refused? I don't > follow lkml) to use git. So yes, quilt can scale up to the linux kernel > size quite well. It's probably also worth pointing out that the recommended way to work with git for Linux contributions (with constantly rebased branches and refactored patches) is very similar to the quilt workflow. git rebase works in exactly the same way as reapplying a quilt patch stack. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature