From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754061AbYDZRcG (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:32:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751246AbYDZRb4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:31:56 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:60935 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751005AbYDZRbz (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:31:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:31:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Adrian Bunk cc: Andrew Morton , Harvey Harrison , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , LKML Subject: Re: If you want me to quit I will quit In-Reply-To: <20080426171604.GN2252@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Message-ID: References: <1209190455.14173.13.camel@brick> <20080426110044.GB2252@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080426075132.b0fdbe13.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080426152341.GI2252@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080426084420.8e61c379.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080426171604.GN2252@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 08:44:20AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >... > > git-tree owners might need, umm, some encouragement here. It's much easier > > for them to slap the oh-let's-fix-that-up commit at the tail of their > > queue, which leaves us with the straggly commit record. > > As far as I understand Linus on these matters people David Miller > mustn't edit older commits in their trees once their tree got pushed > out. I wouldn't say "mustn't", because the _one_ thing I hate is totally rigid rules. What I do try to encourage is for people to think publicising their git trees as "version announcements". They're obviously _development_ versions, but they're still real versions, and before you publicize them you should try to make sure that they make sense and are something you can stand behind. And once you've publicized them, you don't know who has that tree, so just from a sanity and debugging standpoint, you should try to avoid mucking with already-public versions. If you made a mistake, add a patch on top to fix it (and announce the new state), but generally try to not "hide" the fact that the state has changed. But it's not a hard rule. Sometimes simple cleanliness means that you can decide to go "oops, that was *really* wrong, let's just throw that away and do a whole new set of patches". But it should be something rare - not normal coding practice. Because if it becomes normal coding practice, now people cannot work with you sanely any more (ie some random person pulls your tree for testing, and then I pull it at some other time, and the tester reports a problem, but now the commits he is talking about don't actually even exist in my tree any more, and it's all really messy!). The x86 tree still does this. I absolutely detest it. Ingo claims that his model is better, and I'm pretty damn sure he's wrong. But until it starts causing bigger problems, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Linus