On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:56:40PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Look into the fine conflict report Russell: it conflicts with > *Linus's* tree, because it's based off some random > barely-beyond-rc1 development window -rc3 base. Even at the > commit date of Feb 27 we had a more stable base tree available - > and especially when you pulled it, several weeks down the line, > -rc3 was not a defensible base for the integrated result. I'm not going to ask someone to rebase their patches after they've been fully tested on a set of platforms. It has been stated many times that rebasing invalidates the testing that the patches have been subjected to, and these have been tested by several different people on a range of platforms. It seems what _you_ care more about is having nice clean git trees and proper git flow at the detriment to dealing with tested changes. The fact of the matter is that I took a set of well tested patches into my tree which _you_ were copied on multiple times, that Peter Z. was aware of what was happening, and which trivially conflict with some other change which happened along the way. Such a trivial conflict does _NOT_ justify rebasing the patch set, thereby invalidating all the testing that has done. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
