Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:26:28 -0400 |
| |
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 present.
-- Steve
| |