Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] Thermal management updates for v5.4-rc1 | From | Zhang Rui <> | Date | Sat, 28 Sep 2019 22:00:00 +0800 |
| |
Hi, Linus,
I'm really sorry about this.
I thought no code change could be a reason that a rebase can be accepted, but didn't realize this is exactly the case we should avoid it. I wish I could read Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and- merging.rst earlier so that I didn't make this mistake. Sorry to bring this trouble.
thanks, rui
On Fri, 2019-09-27 at 11:34 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 6:08 AM Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > wrote: > > > > One thing to mention is that, all the patches have been tested in > > linux-next for weeks, but there is a conflict detected, because > > upstream has took commit eaf7b46083a7e34 ("docs: thermal: add it to > > the > > driver API") from jc-docs tree while I'm keeping a wrong version of > > the > > patch, so I just rebased my tree to fix this. > > Why do I have to say this EVERY single release? > > A conflict is not a reason to rebase. Conflicts happen. They happen a > lot. I deal with them, and it's usually trivial. > > If you feel it's not trivial, just describe what the resolution is, > rather than rebasing. Really. > > Rebasing for a random conflict (particularly in documentation, for > chrissake!) is like using an atomic bomb to swat a fly. You have all > those downsides, and there are basically _no_ upsides. It only makes > for more work for me because I have to re-write this email for the > millionth time, and that takes longer and is more aggravating than > the > conflict would have taken to just sort out. > > Linus
| |