linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] LED subsystem updates for 4.6

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:	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:40:47 +0100
From:	Jacek Anaszewski <j.anaszewski@...sung.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux LED Subsystem <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
	amitoj1606@...il.com, ao2@....it, drivshin@...worx.com,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
	hkallweit1@...il.com, stefan.wahren@...e.com,
	Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@...ndmicro.com.cn>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] LED subsystem updates for 4.6

On 03/16/2016 06:04 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Jacek Anaszewski
> <j.anaszewski@...sung.com> wrote:
>>
>> I just wanted to make sure that no unexpected problem has occurred
>> after rebasing onto 4.5 release. Is it in some way more advantageous to
>> base a pull request on rc7, than on a final release?
>
> I'd rather see the pull request based on whatever it has been tested
> on, and just keep it that way.
>
> Any rebasing will inevitably mean that you are basically throwing all
> previous testing out the window (or at least make it dubious).
>
> Rebasing also makes it much harder to see the history (for example,
> compare it against previous linux-next trees), so the rule really
> should be that you should never rebase unless you have a major reason
> to do so.
>
> So for example, if you actually find a problem, and you notice that
> that problem comes not from your own changes, but from the base you
> picked - *then* you'd want to rebase to a more stable base. But a
> rebase "just because" is not a good idea.
>
> I'll pull it, since it looks fairly harmless, but basically please
> don't do that again.

Thanks for the explanation. I'll proceed accordingly.

-- 
Best regards,
Jacek Anaszewski