Hi Chris, On 8 August 2017 at 20:03, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Dibyendu Majumdar > <mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I am not sure why you consider some history "dirty". I think all >> history is good as it tells people how the change evolved, If you >> apply a patch and a bug is found, or you want to amend the patch > > For example, there is some internal version of patches has some compile error. > That definitely don't want to be part of the history. It will hurt the > binary search. > Some patch in the early version might be totally wrong, that does not > need to go into history. e.g. the revert of the change and revert of the revert > later on. > > I consider a patch will take some time and experiment to mature. > We don't have to submit every generation of the patch into history. > I think that compile error should not be possible? Because before you merge any patch presumably you build Sparse and run the tests? As for other changes that were later removed - in my view this is valuable history as it tells people what was tried and discarded and why. I still feel all history is good. Regards Dibyendu -- 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
