[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150811.120027.1186256660854311012.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com
Cc: f.fainelli@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...oirfairelinux.com,
linux@...ck-us.net, andrew@...n.ch, sfeldma@...il.com,
jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/7] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: support switchdev
FDB objects
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:18:42 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 2:07 PM, David davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>>
>>> From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:03:35 -0700
>>>
>>>> Put differently, my question is how do you value not rewriting
>>>> history vs. breaking bisectability (by accident of course)?
>>>
>>> I never will rewrite history, ever.
>>>
>>> Too many people clone my tree and depend upon it.
>>
>> Sorry, I still don't understand. What are the consequences of:
>>
>> git revert -m 1 f1d5ca4
>>
>> Then applying v3?
>
> In this scenerio I think a relative fixup works better.
>
>> You already did that in the past:
>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/1f2cd84
>
> Each and every situation is evaluated by me on a case by case
> basis.
Ok, if you guys really want me to I'll do the revert-reapply thing.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists