[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next
    On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 23:59 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
    > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:54:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > >
    > > Maintainer trees pushed towards linux-next should strive to be Git
    > > based, append-mostly, 'nice', 'intended for upstream' and defendable
    > > as-is IMO, and rebasing a _maintainer tree_ should really be a rare act
    > > of last resort.
    > As maintainer I try to put some effort in crediting people
    > where credit belongs.
    > In other words collecting "Acked-by:", "Tested-by", "Reviewed-by".
    > Adding this require a rebase as soon as said patch hits git.

    I've been saying for a while that git really needs a way to "annotate" a
    commit. And have git log show those annotations by default.
    Signed-off-by must be in the original commit. But Acked-by, Tested-by
    and Reviewed-by almost always come after it hits some git repo.

    Thus, if we could add an annotation to a commit later, that would be
    very helpful. We could add these other labels on.

    For Acked-by, when needed (touching a Maintainers code) I usually send
    out an RFC patch set first to get these. But for Reviewed-by and
    Tested-by which usually come after I have it in my git tree and I push
    it off to Ingo, those come later. And unfortunately, I seldom get to add
    those tags.

    I think this is more of a failure in git than in the work flow we

    -- Steve

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-27 00:29    [W:0.019 / U:115.540 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site