Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932167AbZJ0INj (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:13:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932110AbZJ0INi (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:13:38 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:54286 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932108AbZJ0INh (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:13:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:13:16 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Miller Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, sam@ravnborg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nico@fluxnic.net, tony.luck@intel.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, mcgrof@gmail.com, jeff@garzik.org, robert.richter@amd.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, khali@linux-fr.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next Message-ID: <20091027081316.GB32640@elte.hu> References: <1256603403.26028.358.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20091026.183416.52095233.davem@davemloft.net> <1256612558.26028.391.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20091026.221854.111712128.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091026.221854.111712128.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1750 Lines: 45 * David Miller wrote: > From: Steven Rostedt > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:02:38 -0400 > > > Whether I'm sending a patch to Ingo, Linus, Andrew, or even you, I > > would do it publicly and have a git repo to pull from for > > simplicity. > > Sure, but just don't do it with a GIT repo that's going to make it's > way to Linus. > > When you commit to any such GIT repo, you're making a permanent > irrevocable change whose history cannot be changed. > > And given what you get in return for that, it's a pretty reasonable > constraint. Agreed - and the people asking us to rebase trees miss this point, completely. The thing is, i've been on both sides of the equation - three years ago i ran a patch-queue with 1500 patches in it, two years ago i ran a daily rebasing/rewinding Git tree and later i ran an occasionally-rebasing flow as well. By far the best method is to not rebase/rewind maintainer trees. If Linus can manage without rebasing _ever_, with _his_ rate of 10,000 commits every 3 months, 300+ merges, with up to 50 direct commits authored by him per cycle then i'm quite sure other maintainers should be able to do that too. (at minimum the larger ones) The networking tree has been doing this for a long amount of time - and all the trees i co-maintain are very close to doing this as well. So if there's any trend for the trees i'm involved with it's in the direction of _less_ rebasing/rewinding, not more of it. Ingo -- 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/