On 3/27/2023 10:26 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > We don't state explicitly that reverts need to be submitted > as a patch. It occasionally comes up. > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > CC: corbet@xxxxxxx > CC: linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > --- > Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 9 ++++++++- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > index e31d7a951073..f6983563ff06 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > @@ -184,11 +184,18 @@ Handling misapplied patches > > Occasionally a patch series gets applied before receiving critical feedback, > or the wrong version of a series gets applied. > -There is no revert possible, once it is pushed out, it stays like that. > + > +Making the patch disappear once it is pushed out is not possible, the commit > +history in netdev trees is stable. > Please send incremental versions on top of what has been merged in order to fix > the patches the way they would look like if your latest patch series was to be > merged. > > +In cases where full revert is needed the revert has to be submitted > +as a patch to the list with a commit message explaining the technical > +problems with the reverted commit. Reverts should be used as a last resort, > +when original change is completely wrong; incremental fixes are preferred. > + This is much clearer. It highlights that you won't rewind/modify history, and explains the desire for incremental fixes better. Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx> > Stable tree > ~~~~~~~~~~~ >
