From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jacek Anaszewski Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] LED subsystem updates for 4.6 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:40:47 +0100 Message-ID: <56E90DFF.6090603@samsung.com> References: <1457951097-27079-1-git-send-email-j.anaszewski@samsung.com> <20160315103613.3eb6347e@canb.auug.org.au> <56E7BEE8.2000004@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailout3.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.13]:64967 "EHLO mailout3.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933642AbcCPHkv (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 03:40:51 -0400 In-reply-to: Sender: linux-leds-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-leds@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux LED Subsystem , amitoj1606@gmail.com, ao2@ao2.it, drivshin@allworx.com, Geert Uytterhoeven , hkallweit1@gmail.com, stefan.wahren@i2se.com, Wei Yongjun On 03/16/2016 06:04 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Jacek Anaszewski > wrote: >> >> I just wanted to make sure that no unexpected problem has occurred >> after rebasing onto 4.5 release. Is it in some way more advantageous to >> base a pull request on rc7, than on a final release? > > I'd rather see the pull request based on whatever it has been tested > on, and just keep it that way. > > Any rebasing will inevitably mean that you are basically throwing all > previous testing out the window (or at least make it dubious). > > Rebasing also makes it much harder to see the history (for example, > compare it against previous linux-next trees), so the rule really > should be that you should never rebase unless you have a major reason > to do so. > > So for example, if you actually find a problem, and you notice that > that problem comes not from your own changes, but from the base you > picked - *then* you'd want to rebase to a more stable base. But a > rebase "just because" is not a good idea. > > I'll pull it, since it looks fairly harmless, but basically please > don't do that again. Thanks for the explanation. I'll proceed accordingly. -- Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski