From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4FFC28CC0 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 20:44:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DABC24190 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 20:44:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="XJETKWcr" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726489AbfE2UoH (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2019 16:44:07 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-f68.google.com ([209.85.167.68]:43704 "EHLO mail-lf1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725990AbfE2UoG (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 May 2019 16:44:06 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f68.google.com with SMTP id u27so3186661lfg.10; Wed, 29 May 2019 13:44:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XCwhuB4PQS6mTFsAoZhvJoDj+aOulw1jh2sHpi+VND8=; b=XJETKWcr1r5R6k2R3sMYZjPDslhzyyclI5F2iXx9+8Ap831nwUu/9TUfScoB6s1SYG Bqq+i1um+U4JmssIRLQ51RMtwvubCMePCnqj4rbFoUwS9KIojgIB0wjwJLGTkdMJ9Bv+ /PPODPY2fpsuO6jcFgcNBJx/2kDC8xHhQtwfQ5fDpCZC8iFyZFon4SP6Ptc+6hPWqcyh IPPa2g3ndnEnl3+gU3zQ874EaaSkBL/6NaJZ9DTjcUDN054w9+FO6XjoVKapf2EfadAT VBo/QgE4L6NxnQaLEGCyGFVki9HtK5Qa2uJrdwELAIHwhzx+R4Y/aCqsdvh1lSqOVWqi uVhg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XCwhuB4PQS6mTFsAoZhvJoDj+aOulw1jh2sHpi+VND8=; b=C/H5WvH/GSPvYYpBRTrOT6R3YLpgdoJkEcyDZZ9O1dYcEWZ1hN2CRaT0qm0yHw+JVk iRVKYYF6RR9XWv7MbEZnsBb63K1Okc4etpddbqDbE5nhs611iUhNcvh5lRD4mK8205Ne 1bQ2Z3EmKNnADGvK8IVQrUgGuaf5X+uIWaV1fb/fsWWVEIrGpq5sZYmIvBLluSWpW3Sv IZUrxEE55YKtkCkG04XgkwnVetJLrEr3UTa6bAcqj8IKL6XIw2dd4UdpxZwHBGm3Blh6 8EmZtugwrwzKWrgZa3ud7i9+Nyxi4Pu1fx+N6bYTCS4NqJ7I7RdBP6cGvaFcGPvyo2tc N8kg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXb4FOnzAnM1h7nHTAEB5lfgmgrndWW7hADBkO1H4TDySFPjVJO +IVZhbGkHrx1jaM9+NBPpS0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy9DOplhsgA8vFtKyC/Hthz0tbjMABhG0P/YLyfcpfcZSf78VoQX1uq87aRucIBSc78g7OVUA== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4857:: with SMTP id 23mr15698494lfy.158.1559162644478; Wed, 29 May 2019 13:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.17] (cjl105.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl. [83.31.61.105]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z11sm70326ljb.68.2019.05.29.13.44.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 May 2019 13:44:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Immutable branch between LEDs, MFD and REGULATOR To: Mark Brown Cc: Lee Jones , linux-leds@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com References: <20190521203038.31946-1-jacek.anaszewski@gmail.com> <20190522054256.GA4574@dell> <3492171a-bcdc-bee2-684c-e1029653a811@gmail.com> <20190523083129.GH4574@dell> <20190524115659.GC2456@sirena.org.uk> From: Jacek Anaszewski Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 22:44:01 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190524115659.GC2456@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I've just noticed gmail redirected this message to the Spam folder. I will have to improve my filters to secure myself against that. Sorry for late reply and maybe unnecessary escalation of the issue. On 5/24/19 1:56 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:07:35PM +0200, Jacek Anaszewski wrote: >> On 5/23/19 10:31 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > >>> Once an immutable branch is created, it should never, ever change. I >>> think this is the second pull-request I've had from you [0] and the >>> second one you've wanted to retract. That should not happen! > >> This is life - it is always possible that some problems will be >> detected in linux-next later in the cycle, either by bots or by other >> people. > > If you've created an immutable branch that other people might have > merged you should be doing incremental fixes on top of it and not > changing it unless you've confirmed that nobody else merged it, that's > the whole immutable thing. If you rebase the commits are still going to > be in other people's trees and will still end up getting merged which > makes a mess. That's obvious. I checked that the branch wasn't pulled to any of the affected subsystems. Also double-checked it wasn't present in linux-next at the time I was dropping the signed tag, and updating the branch. >> Some time ago I referred to Linus' message from 2017 discouraging >> maintainers from cross-merging their trees, which you didn't find >> applicable to existing MFD workflow. > >> Recently Linus put stress on that again [0]. > > There's a difference between just grabbing someone's whole tree and > pulling in a targetted topic branch with only specific overlapping > stuff. There's also no requirement on people to immediately merge > such a topic branch, they can always just keep it on file until it > does become important for dependencies. A lot of the MFD cross tree > merges are happening because constants introduced in the MFD tree > become build dependencies for other trees. > > Historically there were maintainers who just randomly merged people's > entire trees which does cause lots of problems, this isn't that. > >> So please, if you find it reasonable to proceed with these immutable >> branches workflow, I would first prefer to see Linus' approval for that. > > This is nothing new. I just wanted to make sure. We will see if Linus will have something to add. -- Best regards, Jacek Anaszewski