linux-kernel - Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:36:25 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Benny Halevy <bhalevy@...asas.com>
cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, arjan@...radead.org,
	greg@...ah.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/