On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 11:11:29AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 6:13 AM Wei Liu <wei.liu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > There are two merges from the tip tree: one is because of Tianyu's > > patches went in via tip/x86/sev, the other is because a tree-wide > > cleanup in tip/x86/cc conflicted with Tianyu's patch. > > > > Instead of requiring you to fix up I thought I'd just do it myself. > > Please don't do that. > > Merging a pre-requisite and having a common branch that you merge - that's fine. > > But don't hide merge conflicts from me by "pre-merging". It's not helpful. > > And to make matters worse, both of those merges are BAD. > > They have absolutely no explanation. > > Christ. > > For the millionth time: > > IF YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO WRITE A PROPER COMMIT MESSAGE FOR A > MERGE, DON'T DO THE MERGE > > I'm getting really tired of having to say this multiple times every > merge window (and often in between merge windows too). > > Your merges are bad, and you should feel bad. > > I've pulled this, but at some point I'm just going to have to decide > that "bad merges means I will not pull your garbage". > > Merges need commit messages that explain what is going on, just as > much as any other commit does. > > In fact, arguably they need *more* explanation, since they are subtler > and don't have the obvious patch associated with them that may clarify > what is going on. > > So a merge message like > > Merge remote-tracking branch 'tip/x86/sev' into hyperv-next > > is *NOT* an acceptable merge message. It needs an explanation of what > that SEV branch contained, and *WHY* those contents needed to be > merged into hyperv-next. > > Again: if you can't explain the merge, or you can't be bothered, just > DON'T DO IT. > > And no, the "hide conflicts from Linus" is _not_ an acceptable reason > to do merges. > > I do so many merges that I can do most conflicts in my sleep, and > often do them as well or better than the submaintainers do. And I > write proper merge messages, and when a conflict happens it means I > *know* about it and am aware of how different trees ended up > interacting with each other - all of which is good. > > Again - I've taken this pull request, but I'm not happy about those > merges. Even the merge that was perfectly fine to do wasn't done well. > Okay. Noted. Thanks for pulling in those patches. I will keep what you said above in mind for future PRs. Wei. > Linus
