Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-29565-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZahG7xgHJ4Tf8mHI@shikoro>
In-Reply-To: <ZahG7xgHJ4Tf8mHI@shikoro>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:02:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgSF9zaUCMWe8FuLrfwS0PxJXyxQxFGn7_W22C0rTaQXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PULL REQUEST] i2c-for-6.8-rc1-fixed
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, 
	linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>, 
	Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 13:30, Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>  And a big series for the
> designware-driver needed to be reverted because issues have been
> reported late in the cycle and no incremental fix has been found yet.
> This is the fixed pull requested with a missing revert added.

Honestly, with three quarters of the commits being the broken series,
followed by reverting it, I get the feeling that this would be better
rebased.

I don't like rebasing, but I also don't like "look, we had most of
these commits broken, so we just reverted them all" all noticed before
it even hits my tree.

So I really feel like at that point you go "this branch was a failure"
and start anew - aka rebase. Along with a big explanation of why a
recent rebase ended up happening, so that there is no confusion about
it.

              Linus