Re: [GIT PULL v4 00/21] libnd: non-volatile memory device support

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Hi,

[...]

>>>>>     2/ Update to latest NFIT UUID definitions (Toshi).  This
>>>>>        merges cleanly with, and is identical to the include/acpi/
>>>>>        NFIT enabling in Rafael's linux-pm.git/bleeding-edge branch.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I didn't expect you to send a pull request for this right away
>>>> to be honest.
>>>
>>> No worries, we can address these concerns now...
>>>
>>>> Can you please pull from my acpica branch and rebase your patches on
>>>> top of that by any chance?
>>>
>>> I noticed that bleeding-edge rebased from the last time I checked is
>>> that branch stable enough to use as a baseline?
>>
>> There is a separate acpica branch (called "acpica") that's not going
>> to be rebased.  Please use that one.
>>
>>>> And no, the "merges cleanly" part isn't sufficient as it'll create a
>>>> mess of a history if merged together like that.  Can we do that
>>>> properly instead?
>>>
>>> If I merge 'bleeding-edge' on top of v4.1-rc5 followed by this branch
>>> and do a "git log include/acpi/acuuid.h" then the full history from
>>> the 'bleeding-edge' branch shows up.
>>>
>>> I'm fine with doing the rebase, but I don't quite see the mess to
>>> which you are referring.  Especially compared to the thrash of moving
>>> our test baseline.
>>
>> People will not be running your test baseline, mind you.  They will be
>> running the product of merging that with other stuff and for example
>> the same change showing as two different commits in the history is not
>> a particularly clean thing.
>
> That's what -rc kernels are for, to test your development baseline
> against everything that came in during the merge window, i.e. when you
> know you have a solid development baseline to reference.  Linus
> reprimands late rebasing for good reason.
>
> Really, we're going to rebase 13,000 lines of new functionality and 20
> patches to prevent recording some extra history around 200+ lines of
> header definitions?  The history for those 200 lines being
> autogenerated from another repo.  I struggle to resolve the risk
> benefit tradeoff of going this route... are you sure this is a hard
> gate for moving forward with this patch set?

And how much time is it going to take to rebase it, actually?

If all is so clean as you're suggesting, a "git rebase" should be
sufficient for that really.  Is it not the case?

I do believe that having a clean history in the repository is
important, especially for big new and complicated features like this
one.

For the same reason I don't believe that rushing such features in no
matter what is the right approach.

If Jens decides to pull it regardless, it's his call, but I wouldn't
do that if I were him.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/