From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:40414 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754550AbYBLSiD (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:38:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:36:25 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) In-Reply-To: <47B1DD17.2030204@panasas.com> Message-ID: References: <20080211203146.3d28d1a0@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20080212044314.GA4888@kroah.com> <20080211211751.3e265754@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20080211.221126.230471463.davem@davemloft.net> <47B1CB08.4020101@garzik.org> <1202838082.3137.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47B1DD17.2030204@panasas.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Benny Halevy Cc: James Bottomley , Jeff Garzik , David Miller , arjan@infradead.org, greg@kroah.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Benny Halevy wrote: > > IMHO, this base tree should typically be based off of linus' tree > and kept rebased on top of it. This way you get the mainline fixes > through the integration base tree. Hell no! No rebasing! If people rebase, then it's useless as a base. That base tree needs to be something people can *depend* on. It contains the API changes, and not anything else. Otherwise I will never ever pull the resulting mess, and you all end up with tons of extra work. Just say *no* to rebasing. Rebasing is fine for maintaining *your* own patch-set, ie it is an alternative to using quilt. But it is absolutely not acceptable for *anythign* else. In particular, people who rebase other peoples trees should just be shot (*). It's simply not acceptable behaviour. It screws up the sign-off procedure, it screws up the people whose code was merged, and it's just WRONG. Linus (*) The exception being if there is something seriously wrong with the tree. I think I've had trees which I just refused to pull, and while most of the time I just say "I refuse to pull", early on in git development I actually ended up fixing some of those trees up because my refusal was due to people mis-using git in the first place. So I have actually effectively rebased a maintainer tree at least once. But I still think it is seriously screwed up.