Re: [RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next

[Stefan Richter]

On 10/27/2009 7:07 PM, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:01:57PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> A missing
>> allocation failure check or a missing tracepoint don't break
>> bisectability.  So why discard this history?  (It was already published
>> in a release preview.)
> 
> There are multiple issues for rewinding patches.  One is to avoid
> breaking bisectability.  Other is to keep related changes in
> functionality in a single place.  2-3 years for now, does anyone
> really care about retaining development history?  In the human memory,
> one of the most important parts of long-term memory formation is
> *forgetting*; that is, editing down everything that happened down to
> the most cogent and importants bits of history.
[...]

Sure.  But when is the deadline for doing this?  The evening before you
send a pull request to Linus?  Or already when you commit to the branch
from which Stephen pulls into linux-next, which means:  This is code and
history which I would ask Linus to pull right now if he was in merge
mode today.

[I for one would indeed add non-essential credits or otherwise touch up
the history even if it already was in linux-next but Linus' next merge
window isn't there yet.  But I would batch such rewinds up for a single
occasion between merge windows, and only do them at all if there are
several such changes to make it worthwhile.  And I only do that because
I work at driver code with limited interaction with other subsystems,
and virtually no co-developers in the project.]
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= =-=- ==-==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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/