linux-next: rebase of the drivers-x86 tree

linux-next: rebase of the drivers-x86 tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 452 bytes --]

Hi Matthew,

Why have you just rebased the drivers-x86 tree
(git://cavan.codon.org.uk/platform-drivers-x86.git#linux-next)?  You have
just invalidated your testing and made it likely that Linus will blast
you if you ask him to pull your tree.  Your whole tree was already based
after v3.10 (i.e. released or rebased after the merge window opened), so
why move it again?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: rebase of the drivers-x86 tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 805 bytes --]

Hi Matthew,

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:08:39 -0400 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
>
> Because I noticed that one of the patches changed the permissions on a
> file to 755 and rewrote it. 

That is hardly a reason to rebase your tree.  Just add another commit to
correct the situation.  The tree as it stood would not have affected
anyone's building, running or bisecting.

And why do I now have three versions of your tree?  The one in linux-next
on Friday, the one in linux-next today, and the one you asked Linus to
pull.

I hope you don't have any developers trying to develop stuff based on
your tree :-(

And yes, this is a rhetorical question, just trying to get you to think
about your process.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: rebase of the drivers-x86 tree

[Matthew Garrett]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:13:06AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> That is hardly a reason to rebase your tree.  Just add another commit to
> correct the situation.  The tree as it stood would not have affected
> anyone's building, running or bisecting.

I verified that the only difference before and after rebasing was that 
the file permission was back the way it should be. Why clutter history?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org