On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi, [...] >>>>> 2/ Update to latest NFIT UUID definitions (Toshi). This >>>>> merges cleanly with, and is identical to the include/acpi/ >>>>> NFIT enabling in Rafael's linux-pm.git/bleeding-edge branch. >>>> >>>> Well, I didn't expect you to send a pull request for this right away >>>> to be honest. >>> >>> No worries, we can address these concerns now... >>> >>>> Can you please pull from my acpica branch and rebase your patches on >>>> top of that by any chance? >>> >>> I noticed that bleeding-edge rebased from the last time I checked is >>> that branch stable enough to use as a baseline? >> >> There is a separate acpica branch (called "acpica") that's not going >> to be rebased. Please use that one. >> >>>> And no, the "merges cleanly" part isn't sufficient as it'll create a >>>> mess of a history if merged together like that. Can we do that >>>> properly instead? >>> >>> If I merge 'bleeding-edge' on top of v4.1-rc5 followed by this branch >>> and do a "git log include/acpi/acuuid.h" then the full history from >>> the 'bleeding-edge' branch shows up. >>> >>> I'm fine with doing the rebase, but I don't quite see the mess to >>> which you are referring. Especially compared to the thrash of moving >>> our test baseline. >> >> People will not be running your test baseline, mind you. They will be >> running the product of merging that with other stuff and for example >> the same change showing as two different commits in the history is not >> a particularly clean thing. > > That's what -rc kernels are for, to test your development baseline > against everything that came in during the merge window, i.e. when you > know you have a solid development baseline to reference. Linus > reprimands late rebasing for good reason. > > Really, we're going to rebase 13,000 lines of new functionality and 20 > patches to prevent recording some extra history around 200+ lines of > header definitions? The history for those 200 lines being > autogenerated from another repo. I struggle to resolve the risk > benefit tradeoff of going this route... are you sure this is a hard > gate for moving forward with this patch set? And how much time is it going to take to rebase it, actually? If all is so clean as you're suggesting, a "git rebase" should be sufficient for that really. Is it not the case? I do believe that having a clean history in the repository is important, especially for big new and complicated features like this one. For the same reason I don't believe that rushing such features in no matter what is the right approach. If Jens decides to pull it regardless, it's his call, but I wouldn't do that if I were him. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
