Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755551AbZJ0SyG (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:54:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751693AbZJ0SyG (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:54:06 -0400 Received: from hp3.statik.tu-cottbus.de ([141.43.120.68]:50358 "EHLO hp3.statik.tu-cottbus.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751533AbZJ0SyF (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:54:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4AE741CE.6050200@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:54:06 +0100 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090825 SeaMonkey/1.1.18 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Theodore Tso CC: "Luck, Tony" , Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt , LKML , Nicolas Pitre , Stephen Rothwell , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Jeff Garzik , Robert Richter , Dmitry Torokhov , Jean Delvare , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next References: <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA3E33D0174@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <20091023134115.GD27097@elte.hu> <20091023191631.GA1879@elte.hu> <1256326512.26028.34.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20091023205400.GA8356@elte.hu> <20091024080326.GA7461@mit.edu> <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA3E33D0A53@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> <20091026052118.GB13941@mit.edu> <4AE5E415.801@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20091027180718.GC7915@mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20091027180718.GC7915@mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1840 Lines: 38 On 10/27/2009 7:07 PM, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:01:57PM +0100, Stefan Richter wrote: >> A missing >> allocation failure check or a missing tracepoint don't break >> bisectability. So why discard this history? (It was already published >> in a release preview.) > > There are multiple issues for rewinding patches. One is to avoid > breaking bisectability. Other is to keep related changes in > functionality in a single place. 2-3 years for now, does anyone > really care about retaining development history? In the human memory, > one of the most important parts of long-term memory formation is > *forgetting*; that is, editing down everything that happened down to > the most cogent and importants bits of history. [...] Sure. But when is the deadline for doing this? The evening before you send a pull request to Linus? Or already when you commit to the branch from which Stephen pulls into linux-next, which means: This is code and history which I would ask Linus to pull right now if he was in merge mode today. [I for one would indeed add non-essential credits or otherwise touch up the history even if it already was in linux-next but Linus' next merge window isn't there yet. But I would batch such rewinds up for a single occasion between merge windows, and only do them at all if there are several such changes to make it worthwhile. And I only do that because I work at driver code with limited interaction with other subsystems, and virtually no co-developers in the project.] -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--= =-=- ==-== http://arcgraph.de/sr/ -- 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/