[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))

    On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Benny Halevy wrote:
    > IMHO, this base tree should typically be based off of linus' tree
    > and kept rebased on top of it. This way you get the mainline fixes
    > through the integration base tree.

    Hell no!

    No rebasing! If people rebase, then it's useless as a base.

    That base tree needs to be something people can *depend* on. It contains
    the API changes, and not anything else. Otherwise I will never ever pull
    the resulting mess, and you all end up with tons of extra work.

    Just say *no* to rebasing.

    Rebasing is fine for maintaining *your* own patch-set, ie it is an
    alternative to using quilt. But it is absolutely not acceptable for
    *anythign* else.

    In particular, people who rebase other peoples trees should just be shot
    (*). It's simply not acceptable behaviour. It screws up the sign-off
    procedure, it screws up the people whose code was merged, and it's just


    (*) The exception being if there is something seriously wrong with the
    tree. I think I've had trees which I just refused to pull, and while most
    of the time I just say "I refuse to pull", early on in git development I
    actually ended up fixing some of those trees up because my refusal was due
    to people mis-using git in the first place. So I have actually effectively
    rebased a maintainer tree at least once. But I still think it is seriously
    screwed up.

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-12 19:41    [W:0.021 / U:11.252 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site