Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:54:00 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next |
| |
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> Here's the basic gist, some people believe that linux-next is used as > a dumping ground for their repos that get rebased all the time. They > use linux-next for early testing, and mostly to make sure their repo > will not collide with other developers repos.
I see signs of such an attitude, and i think it's somewhat harmful.
As far as using linux-next for a test-and-rebase workflow - IMO maintainer trees should lead with a good example and should not push 'avoidable crap that might need rebasing' into linux-next (knowingly at least - there's enough unintentional damage) that they wouldnt push upstream to Linus to begin with.
The pure act of integration testing (the stated primary purpose of linux-next) is a large enough of a job in itself IMHO.
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. [ Developers OTOH can (and will and perhaps should) rebase frequently until a feature becomes pushable. ]
Anyway - just my two cents - YMMV.
Ingo
| |