On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 21:54:56 -0400 "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > FYI, it looks like your patch somehow got hit by your text editor (or > MUA's) line wrapping... Weird, I haven't had a problem like that in decades. No idea what happened here... > > + > > + - Realize that the rebasing a patch series changes the environment in > > + which it was developed and, likely, invalidates much of the testing > > that > > + was done. A rebased patch series should, as a general rule, be treated > > + like new code and retested from the beginning. > > Shouldn't "reparenting" be used in this paragraph? > > I suppose if a patch is getting dropped or modified that can > invalidate some of the testing (although it really depends on the > nature of what's being dropped or modified). And if it's just adding > a Tested-by tag or a CVE number in the commit description, it's not > going to invalidate any testing. I had thought about it and chosen "rebasing", but I can change it. > > +Another reason for doing merges of upstream or another subsystem tree is > > to +resolve dependencies. These dependency issues do happen at times, and > > +sometimes a cross-merge with another tree is the best way to resolve them; > > +as always, in such situations, the merge commit should explain why the > > +merge has been done. Take a momehnt to do it right; people will read those > > +changelogs. > > It might also be useful to mention it might be useful to put the > commits which are needed to solve the dependency problem on its own > separate branch, based off of something like -rc2, and then each of > the trees which need the prerequisite commits can merge in that > branch. That is (I think) in the following paragraph: > Possible alternatives include agreeing with the maintainer to carry > both sets of changes in one of the trees or creating a special branch > dedicated to the dependent commits. Perhaps that last line should read "...dedicated to the prerequisite commits, which can then be merged into both trees" ? Then perhaps I can finally declare victory on this thing? :) Thanks, jon
