Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:54:06 +0100 | From | Stefan Richter <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |