From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757223Ab2AJXRK (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:17:10 -0500 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:55854 "EHLO opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757174Ab2AJXRF (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:17:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:17:03 +0000 From: Mark Brown To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Liam Girdwood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: Regulator updates for 3.3 Message-ID: <20120110231700.GA14242@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <20120109073727.GF22134@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120110184530.GE7164@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120110222711.GK7164@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Cookie: Today is what happened to yesterday. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 02:54:27PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Mark Brown > > Especially in the cases where the lack of the bug fix breaks the new > > code it sems sensible enough to want to do the merges so that the > > history includes things that actually work. > So I don't mind merges if they have a lear reason for existing. OK, good - I figured that was the case but wanted to make sure as you were stating things rather more strongly than that. Just to warn you there's also a whole stack of similar merges going to come in via the sound tree too due to the same workflow, I *could* try to rebuild the history and ask Takashi to redo his tree using that but there's a lot of history there and it'd be hard to figure out which of the merges was actually important. Is it OK to leave things as they are for this release? > So right now "git merge" (and "git pull") make it too easy to make > those meaningless merge commits. If instead of seven pointless merges > you had (say) had two merges that had messages about *why* they > weren't pointless, I'd be perfectly happy. > Addid junio and git to the cc just to bring up this issue of bad UI > once again. I realize it could break old scripts to start up an editor > window, but still.. I'd use a configuration option that popped up an editor by default, even if I did have to manually enable it.