lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next
On 10/27/2009 7:07 PM, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:01:57PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> A missing
>> allocation failure check or a missing tracepoint don't break
>> bisectability. So why discard this history? (It was already published
>> in a release preview.)
>
> There are multiple issues for rewinding patches. One is to avoid
> breaking bisectability. Other is to keep related changes in
> functionality in a single place. 2-3 years for now, does anyone
> really care about retaining development history? In the human memory,
> one of the most important parts of long-term memory formation is
> *forgetting*; that is, editing down everything that happened down to
> the most cogent and importants bits of history.
[...]

Sure. But when is the deadline for doing this? The evening before you
send a pull request to Linus? Or already when you commit to the branch
from which Stephen pulls into linux-next, which means: This is code and
history which I would ask Linus to pull right now if he was in merge
mode today.

[I for one would indeed add non-essential credits or otherwise touch up
the history even if it already was in linux-next but Linus' next merge
window isn't there yet. But I would batch such rewinds up for a single
occasion between merge windows, and only do them at all if there are
several such changes to make it worthwhile. And I only do that because
I work at driver code with limited interaction with other subsystems,
and virtually no co-developers in the project.]
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= =-=- ==-==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-27 19:57    [W:0.141 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site