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 Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Stefan Richter wrote:
>
> Per linux-next submission rules, all /essential/ credits are already
> present. But I agree that it is worth rewinding a for-next branch in
> order to add (non-essential) credits later.

I'd actually personally prefer that people do _not_ generally add
"credits" later.

Quite frankly, if something was committed without having been ack'ed by
some person, then later - when that person sees it on a commit list, for
example - it's worthless adding somebodys late ack.

Same largely goes for 'tested-by' lines.

And 'signed-off-by' are actively _wrong_ to add later. If it didn't come
with a sign-off in the first place, it shouldn't have been committed.

One reason I say this is that I really think it's wrong to even give
credit to some late-comer that pipes in after the patch has already made
it into somebody's tree. If they didn't comment on it while it was passed
around as a patch on mailing lists, what's the point? By the time it's in
somebody elses published tree, any "ack" is worthless, and that person
should simply _not_ get credit for being late to the party.

So I think that there are many good reasons to rebase patches in your own
tree, but I do _not_ think that "adding late acks" is one such reason. If
you've published your tree to others, then it's done. Don't lie about
getting an ack that you didn't get before you made that patch public.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.144 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site