Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Thanks for your patience. For future reference, do you have a preference > either way? I suppose choosing a later base might make it easier for > reviewers who don't have the bandwidth to remember what "master" used to > look like, ... That cuts both ways. For brand-new reviewers who starts from v2 without ever seeing v1, and when the two iterations are far apart in time, it may be true. But reviewers who helped you with earlier rounds hopefully know what they saw and commented on, and keeping the same base would help them to see what is different in the updated iteration, without having to see distracting changes in the surrounding area brought in by using the newer base. > but it's just churn to you, since you're already rebuilding > "seen". To me, it does not make too much of a difference (unless it is clearly a fix for a grave issue that should eventually merge down to older maintenance tracks, and this one is clearly not). If you rebase, I would double check your rebase by rebasing the new interation back to the old base and then merging the new base in to see how the result compares, like I just did this time, before replacing the topic with the application of patches on the updated base, so it is a one-time extra cost to me, but other than that, what I do would not change all that much and it hopefully will make it easier to queue later iterations. Thanks.
