From: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:07:07 -0800 (PST)
> > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > But the "author" is still preserved, right? Why do you need the > > committer name to be preserved? (I'm not denying that there could be > > reasons, I'm just curious what they are.) > > It's not that the committer should be preserved, but: > > - the chain from author -> committer should be visible in the > Signed-off-by: lines. > > If you rebase somebody elses tree, you screw that up. You need to add > your sign-off, since now *you* are the new committer, and *you* took > somebody elses work! I agree with this and that is exactly what I screwed up by mistake this time around. Normally when I rebase I walk through the patches that came from other people's trees and add signoffs as needed. I understand that this is frowned upon to some extent as well. > Put another way: think of the absolute *chaos* that would happen if I were > to rebase instead of just merging. Every time I pull from you I'd > invalidate your whole tree, and you'd have to re-generate. It gets > unmaintainable very quickly. I actually wouldn't mind that, the first thing I do when sending a pull request is I stop putting things into my tree and as soon as the recipient pulls I wipe out my tree and clone a fresh copy of their's. It's really not a big deal. The pusher can queue patches and other stuff up in their mailbox or in a directory somewhere. This quiet period also allows those patches to have some time to be reviewed on the lists before they actually end up in anyone's tree. I really like that mode of operation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
