[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53D106C9.8070803@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:14:49 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: stern@...land.harvard.edu, mail@...ermatthias.de,
hdegoede@...hat.com, sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb-core: Revert "usb-core: Remove Fix mes in file hcd.c"
On 07/23/2014 12:49 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 08:56:10AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > Revert since the commit message is incorrect and the original author refuses
>> > to fix/maintain it because "it's in the kernel already".
> How can someone "fix" a commit message that is already in the tree? You
> can't. The code part is correct, so why introduce the issue back?
(I'm not trying to be aggressive, I just think that I misunderstand how this
part of the process works exactly).
I thought we can always edit -next trees? Why do we have to maintain fast forward
on them?
What happens, if for example you take a patch that causes build breakage? Would you
add a revert after that or just yank the commit out of the tree?
If you add a revert and leave the original broken commit in, wouldn't it cause issues
for anyone trying to bisect a build breakage?
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists