On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I do want to have the flexibility to rebase spase-next. >> It is just how to do it in a way impact you less. > > Just don't rebase my series. I maintain a few aggregation > branches with all the topics branches I need and often > do new dev on top of them because I need to. > When I don't need it I base new dev on some stable point > like master. Do as I suggested, I always use "for-chris" as base. You always put all the bits you want me to pull in "for-chris". I will not rebase your series at all. Why? because your "for-chris" are the base for me. You need to make "for-chris" fast forwardable from master. > If it is a small thing I did the day before, it won't probably be a big > problem but for older stuff it is. The beauty in my model is that. It does not matter how long does sparse-next merge back to master. The you provide your own stable point which I rebase on top of. > Let's do as we had agreed: real pull request will have "[GIT PULL]" > in the email and will always be from the 'for-chris'. I also guarantee > that the pull will not need a non-trivial merge when done from > the current sparse-next. That will make your harder to make some V4 -> V5 change. Your "for-chris" contain all your patches you want me to pull. Then sparse-next only rebase on your "for-chris". Let me due with the merges (not from your patch). Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
