Ingo Molnar writes: > Do you ask Linus to rebase the upstream kernel as well, if the > powerpc or x86 build happens to break? There's more than a dozen > such cases per development cycle triggering on my tests alone. If > not, why not? I see you pulling commits out of the tip tree quite often, when they have testing failures of various kinds. I presume that, like other maintainers, you have some branches that you try hard not to rebase and other testing branches that are quite volatile and get reconstructed frequently (though I don't know what branch names you use for them). I presumed that you wouldn't have put a commit that hadn't even passed basic build testing into one of your non-rebasing branches. That's why I assumed you could fold the fix into the original patch without difficulty. > The thing is, we'll probably redo this portion of the timer tree as > i found other problems in testing, but generally the disadvantages > of a build breakage with a very small non-bisectability window has > to be weighed against the disadvantages of a rebase (which are > significant). > > The equation does not automatically flip in favor of a rebase as you > seem to suggest - in fact it generally goes _against_ a rebase. In a stable, non-rebasing branch, sure. But putting untested patches into such a branch would be a bit silly, so I assumed you hadn't done that. :) Paul. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|