Am 07.08.2014 02:28, schrieb Stephen Rothwell: > Hi Richard, > > On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 13:29:10 +0200 Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Am 06.08.2014 13:27, schrieb Stephen Rothwell: >>> >>> On Wed, 06 Aug 2014 13:18:54 +0200 Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> the following changes since commit 19583ca584d6f574384e17fe7613dfaeadcdc4a6: >>>> >>>> Linux 3.16 (2014-08-03 15:25:02 -0700) >>>> >>>> are available in the git repository at: >>>> >>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rw/misc.git signal-cleanup >>> >>> This has all been rebased onto v3.16 but none of the patches changed. >> >> This was my indention. Also I've added some acks. >> Did I screw something up? > > We discourage people from rebasing their trees just before asking Linus > to pull them unless they have a good reason. Adding Acks is not > necessarily a good reason. It may be a different thing if you rewrite > your tree (without changing it base) and, given that none of your > actual patches changed, that would have worked for you. > > In your case, since you haven't updated the branch (signal_v4) that I > fetch for linux-next, its doubly bad as, after Linus' pulls your tree, > I will have two copies of all those patches in my tree - which could > easily lead to conflicts that I really don't need to have. > > Also, note that the fact that the actual patches did not change at all > means that either you missed some change that coudl have justified the > rebase, or the rebase was unnecessary (since the things you are > patching did not change). > Thanks for the kind explanation. It would be nice to see these rules written down somewhere. Thanks, //richard
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
