Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:57:10 +0200 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] auxdisplay: Move cfag12864b.h to the subsystem folder |
| |
On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 08:54:02PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 07:48:31PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:50 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > It's a standard practice in the Linux kernel development. > > > If it's not a so critical issue, why should we rebase? > > > > > > rebasing will break SHA sums and it's not appreciated especially at the late > > > rcX weeks. Linus can even refuse to accept a PR based on this fact. > > > > I am well aware of what rebasing does and the rules for PRs to Linus, thank you. > > > > First of all, you should have not applied the patch this quickly. > > Nobody gave a tag for it and you yourself are the author. Even if > > someone gave you a tag, 2 days is way too little time for something > > like auxdisplay. 2 weeks would be a more reasonable time frame. > > > > The point is: you seem to be rejecting feedback on the basis that you > > already applied a patch that you yourself authored 2 days ago. Not > > good. > > > > Now, for branches in linux-next, what you should avoid is rebasing > > wildly, but you can still do so if needed. If you are uncomfortable > > with that, then you should avoid rushing patches to begin with so that > > you don't have to do that. > > > > Regarding PRs to Linus, we are still in -rc4. There is plenty of time > > to bake things in `linux-next`. Unless you meant to sent this to a -rc > > release. But in that case: 1) there is no rush, 2) please see the > > first point again. > > Okay, I dropped that patch from the queue.
To be clear why: - I don't see how to use pattern that won't collide with the other record - reducing churn in case you want to move this to staging
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |