* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:28 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > OK, just read up some more on git notes, and *both* the assumptions I > > had made about git notes were fundamentally wrong. Not sure how well > > they would scale, though, but stuffing metadata like additional > > Acked-by:, Tested-by: and Cc: stable into notes seems more viable > > after reading the spec. > > I really don't want to use git notes for anything that actually gets > distributed. Regardless of any scalability and other technical merits, allowing tags to go into a commit log entry via git notes would IMO dilute the value of Acked-by and Reviewed-by tags and it would actively hurt our kernel development workflow I think. Today there's a time limit on acking/reviewing patches: if it did not arrive by the time the code was committed and pushed out, it does not get into the commit log, ever. That gives people an incentive to be active _before_ a patch gets applied. And that's really how it should work IMO: the most important, most critical decision point is when a patch gets applied to a tree with the intent to send it upstream. Maintainers need the most help at that point. Anything after that, unless it points out actual problems or room for improvements (which will generate new commits), is not very useful. So adding git notes after that point to add Acked-by or Reviewed-by tags is just post facto whitewashing, ego stroking or pointless act self-serving bureaucracy, beyond being a sign of a broken Git workflow to begin with. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html