On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:31:48AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
quoted text
> David Miller wrote:
>> I rebase my tree all the time, at least once or twice per
>> week.  Why?

<snip>

quoted text
> FWIW, that is annoying and painful for us downstream jobbers, since it 
> isn't really how git was meant to be used.  You use it more like a patch 
> queue, where commits are very fluid.

<snip>

quoted text
> I understand the desire to want a nice and clean history, but the frequency 
> here really has a negative impact on your downstreams.

FWIW, I definitely have a (vocal minority) group of contributors
who resent all the rebasing.  There may be a few cases of 'vanity'
represented here, but there are definitely reasonable complaints about
not being able to do simple pulls to stay up-to-date and/or having
to rebase before they can send patches to me.  FWIW, I think it might
save a bit of my time as well, although I have become pretty good and
"riding the tide" of rebasing... :-(

Unfortunately, I don't have any good suggestions to remedy the issue.
One strategy might be a third layer of trees, e.g.:

	net-2.6			fixes for the current release
	net-2.6.26		updates certain to go to the next release
	net-2.6.26-maybe	updates that might not make it to the next release

Of course, managing what goes moves-up from -maybe is probably a big
headache, and just sucks-up more of Dave's time.  And, of course,
virtually no one will run the -maybe tree...

Just my $0.02...

John
-- 
John W. Linville
linville@tuxdriver.com
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/