[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:0.147 / U:3.564 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site