Re: [RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> Here's the basic gist, some people believe that linux-next is used as 
> a dumping ground for their repos that get rebased all the time. They 
> use linux-next for early testing, and mostly to make sure their repo 
> will not collide with other developers repos.

I see signs of such an attitude, and i think it's somewhat harmful.

As far as using linux-next for a test-and-rebase workflow - IMO 
maintainer trees should lead with a good example and should not push 
'avoidable crap that might need rebasing' into linux-next (knowingly at 
least - there's enough unintentional damage) that they wouldnt push 
upstream to Linus to begin with.

The pure act of integration testing (the stated primary purpose of 
linux-next) is a large enough of a job in itself IMHO.

Maintainer trees pushed towards linux-next should strive to be Git 
based, append-mostly, 'nice', 'intended for upstream' and defendable 
as-is IMO, and rebasing a _maintainer tree_ should really be a rare act 
of last resort. [ Developers OTOH can (and will and perhaps should) 
rebase frequently until a feature becomes pushable. ]

Anyway - just my two cents - YMMV.

	Ingo