Re: [GIT PULL] Global signal cleanup

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 08:53:56 -1000 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > It would be nice to see these rules written down somewhere.
> 
> The rules have been pretty clear: "don't rebase public trees".
> 
> That's always been the basic rule. There are _exceptions_ when
> rebasing is the right thing to do, and they all boil down to "lesser
> of two evils", but the evils really have to be pretty big.
> 
> Possible reasons to rebase:
> 
>  (a) It's not public yet. You haven't pushed to kernel.org or any
> other public site, and nobody saw you do it.

So this would not be in linux-next, so I don't care :-)

>  (b) You *really* screwed up, and the downsides of rebasing are
> smaller than the downsides of exposing it.
> 
>      As in "oops, that half-way commit doesn't even compile or work at
> all, so leaving it in that state will screw up anybody trying to find
> other bugs with 'git bisect'"
> 
>      At the same time, if you do this just before pushing to me, maybe
> you should take a step back and say "oops, my tree was completely
> broken, maybe I shouldn't push this to Linus just after fixing it".

And this is fine but shouldn't happen just before sending a pull
request (as Linus said).  But may also require informing anyone who
depends on your tree (especially if that other tree is also in
linux-next ... otherwise I could easily end up with both versions).

>  (c) You want to clean things up, and you're not even remotely ready
> to push things upstream, and while people have *seen* your work,
> nobody relies on it or uses it.

And this should not be in linux-next yet, so again I don't care and
shouldn't see it.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature