On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 09:14:49AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 07/23/2014 12:49 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 08:56:10AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> > Revert since the commit message is incorrect and the original author refuses > >> > to fix/maintain it because "it's in the kernel already". > > How can someone "fix" a commit message that is already in the tree? You > > can't. The code part is correct, so why introduce the issue back? > > (I'm not trying to be aggressive, I just think that I misunderstand how this > part of the process works exactly). > > I thought we can always edit -next trees? Why do we have to maintain fast forward > on them? I can never edit my public trees, because people base their work on them, and they are public. > What happens, if for example you take a patch that causes build breakage? Would you > add a revert after that or just yank the commit out of the tree? I add a revert, or add a patch that fixes it. > If you add a revert and leave the original broken commit in, wouldn't it cause issues > for anyone trying to bisect a build breakage? Yes it does. I can not rebase my public trees, nor should any other kernel maintainer. This has been true for _many_ years. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
