From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DACA7D2EF for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 19:08:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726179AbfFDTIj (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:08:39 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:56986 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725933AbfFDTIj (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jun 2019 15:08:39 -0400 Received: from lwn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFEA07DE; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 19:08:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 13:08:37 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: "Theodore Ts'o" Cc: Linus Torvalds , LKML , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Rough draft document on merging and rebasing Message-ID: <20190604130837.24ea1d7b@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <20190601154248.GA17800@mit.edu> References: <20190530135317.3c8d0d7b@lwn.net> <20190601154248.GA17800@mit.edu> Organization: LWN.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 11:42:48 -0400 "Theodore Ts'o" wrote: > Finally, I'm bit concerned about anything which states absolutes, > because there are people who tend to be real stickler for the rules, > and if they see something stated in absolute terms, they fail to > understand that there are exceptions that are well understood, and in > use for years before the existence of the document which is trying to > codify best practices. Hence the "there are exceptions" text at the bottom of the document :) Anyway, I'll rework it to try to take your comments into account. Maybe we should consistently say "rebasing" for changing the parent commit of a patch set, and "history modification" for the other tricks...? Thanks for taking a look, jon