From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com (Sergey Senozhatsky)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 09:05:24 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] vsprintf: fix build warning
In-Reply-To: <20180709234203.GG4447@eros>
References: <20180706134724.563799-1-arnd@arndb.de>
 <20180706144213.GA411@tigerII.localdomain>
 <20180706114951.6e739180@gandalf.local.home>
 <20180709234203.GG4447@eros>
Message-ID: <20180710000524.GA6759@jagdpanzerIV>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

On (07/10/18 09:42), Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > I prefer not to do squashes unless absolutely necessary. Yes, it is in
> > next, but even branches pulled into next should try to resist rebasing
> > (I never rebase my next branch unless there is a real bug that will
> > break bisecting).
> 
> Steve if you do not rebase your next branch and the branch ends up
> containing fixes to patches like the above doesn't this mean that when
> you do a pull request to Linus the branch you are asking to be pulled
> will be too 'dirty' i.e. I thought that the pull request should be like
> a patch set and only contain the 'final product' not every change that
> was made during development?

+1

	-ss