Re: [GIT PULL v4 00/21] libnd: non-volatile memory device support

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>]

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>>>     2/ Update to latest NFIT UUID definitions (Toshi).  This
>>>>>>>        merges cleanly with, and is identical to the include/acpi/
>>>>>>>        NFIT enabling in Rafael's linux-pm.git/bleeding-edge branch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I didn't expect you to send a pull request for this right away
>>>>>> to be honest.
>>>>>
>>>>> No worries, we can address these concerns now...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you please pull from my acpica branch and rebase your patches on
>>>>>> top of that by any chance?
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed that bleeding-edge rebased from the last time I checked is
>>>>> that branch stable enough to use as a baseline?
>>>>
>>>> There is a separate acpica branch (called "acpica") that's not going
>>>> to be rebased.  Please use that one.
>>>>
>>>>>> And no, the "merges cleanly" part isn't sufficient as it'll create a
>>>>>> mess of a history if merged together like that.  Can we do that
>>>>>> properly instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> If I merge 'bleeding-edge' on top of v4.1-rc5 followed by this branch
>>>>> and do a "git log include/acpi/acuuid.h" then the full history from
>>>>> the 'bleeding-edge' branch shows up.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm fine with doing the rebase, but I don't quite see the mess to
>>>>> which you are referring.  Especially compared to the thrash of moving
>>>>> our test baseline.
>>>>
>>>> People will not be running your test baseline, mind you.  They will be
>>>> running the product of merging that with other stuff and for example
>>>> the same change showing as two different commits in the history is not
>>>> a particularly clean thing.
>>>
>>> That's what -rc kernels are for, to test your development baseline
>>> against everything that came in during the merge window, i.e. when you
>>> know you have a solid development baseline to reference.  Linus
>>> reprimands late rebasing for good reason.
>>>
>>> Really, we're going to rebase 13,000 lines of new functionality and 20
>>> patches to prevent recording some extra history around 200+ lines of
>>> header definitions?  The history for those 200 lines being
>>> autogenerated from another repo.  I struggle to resolve the risk
>>> benefit tradeoff of going this route... are you sure this is a hard
>>> gate for moving forward with this patch set?
>>
>> And how much time is it going to take to rebase it, actually?
>>
>> If all is so clean as you're suggesting, a "git rebase" should be
>> sufficient for that really.  Is it not the case?
>
> Of course the rebase is trivial, it's the testing that has gone into
> the baseline being forfeited for no good reason that I take issue.
>
>> I do believe that having a clean history in the repository is
>> important, especially for big new and complicated features like this
>> one.
>
> Sure, in the general case, but this is one extra commit for
> autogenerated acpica history.
>
>> For the same reason I don't believe that rushing such features in no
>> matter what is the right approach.
>>
>> If Jens decides to pull it regardless, it's his call, but I wouldn't
>> do that if I were him.
>
> I'm not going to push code around your objection.  I understand and
> agree with the general policy, but in this specific case I believe an
> exception is warranted.  If you still don't ack the approach I'll
> proceed with the rebase.

Please do a rebase, then.  I don't think it's an unreasonable request.

Thanks,
Rafael