Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:36:25 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
| |
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Benny Halevy wrote: > > IMHO, this base tree should typically be based off of linus' tree > and kept rebased on top of it. This way you get the mainline fixes > through the integration base tree.
Hell no!
No rebasing! If people rebase, then it's useless as a base.
That base tree needs to be something people can *depend* on. It contains the API changes, and not anything else. Otherwise I will never ever pull the resulting mess, and you all end up with tons of extra work.
Just say *no* to rebasing.
Rebasing is fine for maintaining *your* own patch-set, ie it is an alternative to using quilt. But it is absolutely not acceptable for *anythign* else.
In particular, people who rebase other peoples trees should just be shot (*). It's simply not acceptable behaviour. It screws up the sign-off procedure, it screws up the people whose code was merged, and it's just WRONG.
Linus
(*) The exception being if there is something seriously wrong with the tree. I think I've had trees which I just refused to pull, and while most of the time I just say "I refuse to pull", early on in git development I actually ended up fixing some of those trees up because my refusal was due to people mis-using git in the first place. So I have actually effectively rebased a maintainer tree at least once. But I still think it is seriously screwed up.
| |