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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a9e8e68f34139d5a9abb7f8b7d3fe64ff82c6d96.camel@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <a9e8e68f34139d5a9abb7f8b7d3fe64ff82c6d96.camel@intel.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 27 Sep 2019 11:34:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whua2XSTLd3gtqVHfq5HtGnjhRUv7vA6SUfkbVUebqWJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Thermal management updates for v5.4-rc1
To:     Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 6:08 AM Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> wrote:
>
> One thing to mention is that, all the patches have been tested in
> linux-next for weeks, but there is a conflict detected, because
> upstream has took commit eaf7b46083a7e34 ("docs: thermal: add it to the
> driver API") from jc-docs tree while I'm keeping a wrong version of the
> patch, so I just rebased my tree to fix this.

Why do I have to say this EVERY single release?

A conflict is not a reason to rebase. Conflicts happen. They happen a
lot. I deal with them, and it's usually trivial.

If you feel it's not trivial, just describe what the resolution is,
rather than rebasing. Really.

Rebasing for a random conflict (particularly in documentation, for
chrissake!) is like using an atomic bomb to swat a fly.  You have all
those downsides, and there are basically _no_ upsides. It only makes
for more work for me because I have to re-write this email for the
millionth time, and that takes longer and is more aggravating than the
conflict would have taken to just sort out.

                   Linus