[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180710000524.GA6759@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 09:05:24 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernelnewbies@...nelnewbies.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: fix build warning
On (07/10/18 09:42), Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> > I prefer not to do squashes unless absolutely necessary. Yes, it is in
> > next, but even branches pulled into next should try to resist rebasing
> > (I never rebase my next branch unless there is a real bug that will
> > break bisecting).
>
> Steve if you do not rebase your next branch and the branch ends up
> containing fixes to patches like the above doesn't this mean that when
> you do a pull request to Linus the branch you are asking to be pulled
> will be too 'dirty' i.e. I thought that the pull request should be like
> a patch set and only contain the 'final product' not every change that
> was made during development?
+1
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists