From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: git trees organization Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:03:50 +0100 Message-ID: <20170914090349.GA50056@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <2737351.pD9poAUtZC@xps> <20170913145402.GA2481@6wind.com> <5858182.HmkBWfGZLK@xps> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Adrien Mazarguil , Ferruh Yigit , dev@dpdk.org, techboard@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5858182.HmkBWfGZLK@xps> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:22:23AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 14/09/2017 04:25, Stephen Hemminger: > > Bisecting a tree with lots of subtree merges is terrible. That is why Linus > > rebases and doesn't directly take linux-next > > I agree, bisecting with subtree merges is not pleasant at all. > That's why I chose the rebase method until now. > > Adrien mentioned some drawbacks with the rebase method. > Ferruh mentioned some drawbacks and some advantages of rebase. > Stephen mentioned another advantage of rebase. > Such decisions are really difficult. > One thing is sure: there will be always someone unhappy, > no matter the decision :) > > When we want to take such decision or re-consider it, > we ask the techboard to vote... I'm not sure the techboard needs to vote on this, this is an issue for the tree maintainers/committers is it not? If you do want techboard input on this, I suggest the committers come to an agreement among themselves, with community input, and then just look for tech board to ratify it. /Bruce