Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...>, David Miller <davem@...>, <arjan@...>, <greg@...>, <sfr@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-next@...>, <linux-arch@...>, <akpm@...>
Hell no!
No rebasing! If people rebase, then it's useless as a base.
That base tree needs to be something people can *depend* on. It contains
the API changes, and not anything else. Otherwise I will never ever pull
the resulting mess, and you all end up with tons of extra work.
Just say *no* to rebasing.
Rebasing is fine for maintaining *your* own patch-set, ie it is an
alternative to using quilt. But it is absolutely not acceptable for
*anythign* else.
In particular, people who rebase other peoples trees should just be shot
(*). It's simply not acceptable behaviour. It screws up the sign-off
procedure, it screws up the people whose code was merged, and it's just
WRONG.
Linus
(*) The exception being if there is something seriously wrong with the
tree. I think I've had trees which I just refused to pull, and while most
of the time I just say "I refuse to pull", early on in git development I
actually ended up fixing some of those trees up because my refusal was due
to people mis-using git in the first place. So I have actually effectively
rebased a maintainer tree at least once. But I still think it is seriously
screwed up.
--
