From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45011)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TTYyZ-0005ZA-Qs
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:09:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TTYyU-0000lO-MQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:08:59 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42932)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TTYyU-0000lC-Dj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 10:08:54 -0400
Message-ID: <509130E9.8070902@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:08:41 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <508EC28A.5060706@redhat.com>
	<20121029182958.GB29866@ohm.aurel32.net>
	<508F8CBB.8090101@redhat.com> <509053A2.6010504@weilnetz.de>
	<20121030235636.GB32197@hall.aurel32.net>
	<20121031124018.GB3855@ohm.aurel32.net>
	<50912F4D.7060500@redhat.com>
	<CAFEAcA8J_5=+Z9DLYtRoVEvyriehinEtiz7kUoq3Mfu11LG+Ag@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA8J_5=+Z9DLYtRoVEvyriehinEtiz7kUoq3Mfu11LG+Ag@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] 64-on-32 TCG broken
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Stefan Weil <sw@weilnetz.de>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>

Il 31/10/2012 15:05, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> > Thanks!  In general, do not rebase a branch unless you were able to test
>> > the rebase fully.  Use "git merge" instead.  This does not apply to
>> > people without commit access (unless they use pull requests---perhaps we
>> > should use them more), but it is easy for you.
>> >
>> > If you hadn't rebased the series, "git bisect" would have pointed out
>> > that the original series worked, and that the merge was the problem.
> I don't think this actually gains us anything, because we've still
> checked broken code into master, whether it was via a rebase or a
> merge. The correct answer is "test your commits before sending them",
> surely?

I think Aurelien did test, but only on a 64-bit host.  So the idea still
holds: if you have tested more than that earlier, do not rebase.

Paolo