Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764813AbYBMAtw (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:49:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753225AbYBMAto (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:49:44 -0500 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:53041 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752917AbYBMAtn (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:49:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:50:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20080212.165014.01238510.davem@davemloft.net> To: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Cc: bfields@fieldses.org, jeff@garzik.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linville@tuxdriver.com Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: <47B1C9F4.30402@garzik.org> <20080212193754.GC18625@fieldses.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1946 Lines: 48 From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:07:07 -0800 (PST) > > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > But the "author" is still preserved, right? Why do you need the > > committer name to be preserved? (I'm not denying that there could be > > reasons, I'm just curious what they are.) > > It's not that the committer should be preserved, but: > > - the chain from author -> committer should be visible in the > Signed-off-by: lines. > > If you rebase somebody elses tree, you screw that up. You need to add > your sign-off, since now *you* are the new committer, and *you* took > somebody elses work! I agree with this and that is exactly what I screwed up by mistake this time around. Normally when I rebase I walk through the patches that came from other people's trees and add signoffs as needed. I understand that this is frowned upon to some extent as well. > Put another way: think of the absolute *chaos* that would happen if I were > to rebase instead of just merging. Every time I pull from you I'd > invalidate your whole tree, and you'd have to re-generate. It gets > unmaintainable very quickly. I actually wouldn't mind that, the first thing I do when sending a pull request is I stop putting things into my tree and as soon as the recipient pulls I wipe out my tree and clone a fresh copy of their's. It's really not a big deal. The pusher can queue patches and other stuff up in their mailbox or in a directory somewhere. This quiet period also allows those patches to have some time to be reviewed on the lists before they actually end up in anyone's tree. I really like that mode of operation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/