Re: i2c-host for v6.18

[Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1393 bytes --]


> > Urgs, but this is highly problematic. I can't pull something based on
> > 6.18. Usually, things are based on -rc1 or something early to show Linus
> > that it has been in -next for a while. He won't pull something that is
> > less than 48 hours in public and so won't I.
> 
> Just a note that I merged the last few patches on Wednesday. So,
> if the 48 hour window applies, we are well within it.

Well, it is not strictly about 48 hours... I just picked the number
because all of the rebased patches were ~2 days old at the time I looked
at them.

> As I mentioned privately, I can split this into two pull requests
> and use the older reference for the earlier patches if that
> helps. To me it feels more like a formality, since those patches
> have already been in -next for a few weeks and were only rebased
> on top of v6.18.

But this is the key point: after rebasing, no one can see how long they
have been in -next. Especially not the person you ask to pull. This
doesn't look trustworthy. If you hadn't rebased, then one can easily see
that most patches have been in -next for weeks. And if then there are
some new patches on top which are simple enough (like adding an ID),
then the whole pull request probably still looks trustworthy.

> But I am happy to do whatever you prefer.

I prefer one pull request using the ref before the 6.18 rebase.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]