End-point developers can use quilt all thei like.
But people cannot and *MUST NOT* destroy other peoples work with quilt,
nor make it harder for people to share commits.
Len had apparently left a nice topic tree for you. You took that work, and
then destroyed it. And yes, it is noticeable: Jesse had shared some of the
work from Len by pulling one of the branches (the 'suspend' branch), and
then you literally re-wrote _public_ history, so now tohose patches are
duplicated.
Now, duplicate patches happen, and that's not a huge technical issue (most
of the time it all merges cleanly, and it was just three patches this
time), but if you're going to rebase stuff, you're basically making it
impossible for people to share work with you. They can never rely on your
git trees, because your git threes are all throw-away.
Btw, being throw-away also means that they get essentially no testing.
They get rewritten each time, so even if you expose them to something like
linux-next and they get testing there, when you rebase them, the end
result is something *different*, and a lot of the test coverage goes away.
See the discussion from May about the x86 tree. I don't have it online in
my archives any more, but google finds
http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Git_Management
which has at least a big part of the discussion in one readable page.
So no, there's nothing wrong with a quilt interface. But there _is_
something wrong with a maintainer that makes it harder for other people
(in this case Jesse) to work with him, because he destroys history.
Linus
--
