Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-65850-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:57:10 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] auxdisplay: Move cfag12864b.h to the subsystem
 folder
Message-ID: <Zc0NBo2HDCsAQjn8@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240212132515.2660837-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20240212132515.2660837-4-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <Zcoe9axtLXxB7Jeo@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAMuHMdUJ4gSGo4A0BVGkieWvNyqa9Dv_rQVMFj9N8GWYoKCZVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANiq72muoZHzX+qNKabYWnH738okKqrfAruUOpY-4WUJBLP=Yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zcz7Cfc5XSM2MtKV@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CANiq72ntYrPyybUDavPuT+anrwfjPb27P8VbL+toMvyp8K293w@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zcz9WNXpRzv8THKW@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CANiq72mYMztZG5Y5v6m+h2xroDFyyf0Kn7aZ2D7p6p4k_YtTcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zc0MShdvTsjrGGjl@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <Zc0MShdvTsjrGGjl@smile.fi.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 08:54:02PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 07:48:31PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:50 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's a standard practice in the Linux kernel development.
> > > If it's not a so critical issue, why should we rebase?
> > >
> > > rebasing will break SHA sums and it's not appreciated especially at the late
> > > rcX weeks. Linus can even refuse to accept a PR based on this fact.
> > 
> > I am well aware of what rebasing does and the rules for PRs to Linus, thank you.
> > 
> > First of all, you should have not applied the patch this quickly.
> > Nobody gave a tag for it and you yourself are the author. Even if
> > someone gave you a tag, 2 days is way too little time for something
> > like auxdisplay. 2 weeks would be a more reasonable time frame.
> > 
> > The point is: you seem to be rejecting feedback on the basis that you
> > already applied a patch that you yourself authored 2 days ago. Not
> > good.
> > 
> > Now, for branches in linux-next, what you should avoid is rebasing
> > wildly, but you can still do so if needed. If you are uncomfortable
> > with that, then you should avoid rushing patches to begin with so that
> > you don't have to do that.
> > 
> > Regarding PRs to Linus, we are still in -rc4. There is plenty of time
> > to bake things in `linux-next`. Unless you meant to sent this to a -rc
> > release. But in that case: 1) there is no rush, 2) please see the
> > first point again.
> 
> Okay, I dropped that patch from the queue.

To be clear why:
- I don't see how to use pattern that won't collide with the other record
- reducing churn in case you want to move this to staging

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko