On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 8:13 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 8:02 PM Bhardwaj, Rajneesh > <rajneesh.bhardwaj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 13-Feb-19 10:58 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 5:50 PM Bhardwaj, Rajneesh > > > <rajneesh.bhardwaj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> On 13-Feb-19 9:03 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > We don't do rebasing for published changes. Only in rear cases when > > > otherwise would be worse. > > > Darren didn't respond to my question what he thinks about this case, > > > but at least it's not related to the code itself which, in my opinion, > > > decreases a severity. > > > > Thanks Andy. So if i understand correctly, you are suggesting that i > > should ignore those patches that made to "for-next" branch already? > > I suggest you to rebase your local branch against latest subsystem tip > branch, resolve conflicts if any, test, and only after that send a new > version. To clarify: "subsystem tip branch" in our case means for-next. The above is a generic process which would work with Linux kernel development. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
