Re: [GIT PULL] Thermal management updates for v5.4-rc1

[Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>]

Hi, Linus,

I'm really sorry about this.

I thought no code change could be a reason that a rebase can be
accepted, but didn't realize this is exactly the case we should avoid
it. I wish I could read Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-
merging.rst earlier so that I didn't make this mistake.
Sorry to bring this trouble.

thanks,
rui

On Fri, 2019-09-27 at 11:34 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 6:08 AM Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > One thing to mention is that, all the patches have been tested in
> > linux-next for weeks, but there is a conflict detected, because
> > upstream has took commit eaf7b46083a7e34 ("docs: thermal: add it to
> > the
> > driver API") from jc-docs tree while I'm keeping a wrong version of
> > the
> > patch, so I just rebased my tree to fix this.
> 
> Why do I have to say this EVERY single release?
> 
> A conflict is not a reason to rebase. Conflicts happen. They happen a
> lot. I deal with them, and it's usually trivial.
> 
> If you feel it's not trivial, just describe what the resolution is,
> rather than rebasing. Really.
> 
> Rebasing for a random conflict (particularly in documentation, for
> chrissake!) is like using an atomic bomb to swat a fly.  You have all
> those downsides, and there are basically _no_ upsides. It only makes
> for more work for me because I have to re-write this email for the
> millionth time, and that takes longer and is more aggravating than
> the
> conflict would have taken to just sort out.
> 
>                    Linus