Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 4 Jun 2019 13:08:37 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Rough draft document on merging and rebasing
Message-ID: <20190604130837.24ea1d7b@lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190601154248.GA17800@mit.edu>
References: <20190530135317.3c8d0d7b@lwn.net>
        <20190601154248.GA17800@mit.edu>
Organization: LWN.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 11:42:48 -0400
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> Finally, I'm bit concerned about anything which states absolutes,
> because there are people who tend to be real stickler for the rules,
> and if they see something stated in absolute terms, they fail to
> understand that there are exceptions that are well understood, and in
> use for years before the existence of the document which is trying to
> codify best practices.

Hence the "there are exceptions" text at the bottom of the document :)

Anyway, I'll rework it to try to take your comments into account.  Maybe
we should consistently say "rebasing" for changing the parent commit of a
patch set, and "history modification" for the other tricks...?

Thanks for taking a look,

jon