Message ID | 20181004193630.lbxyiecochf5cdfq@flea |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] Allwinner H3/H5 changes for 4.20, bis | expand |
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:36 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> wrote: > > Hi Arnd, Olof, > > Here is a second attempt at the previous PR for the H3 and H5 changes, > hopefully with the right SoB this time. It replaces the previous one. Hi Maxime, I'm not completely sure about this, we generally try not to rebase the branches, and the previous version is now deep in the git history of the next/dt branch. Obviously having a missing signoff is also bad, but I think keeping the old version of your branch is better in this case. Merging the new branch on top of next/dt would give us a proper signoff chain on each patch, but would not remove the patches with the missing signoff. Instead we'd have lots of duplicate commits, which is probably worse. Olof, do you have any other ideas? Arnd
Hi! On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:36 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Arnd, Olof, > > > > Here is a second attempt at the previous PR for the H3 and H5 changes, > > hopefully with the right SoB this time. It replaces the previous one. > > I'm not completely sure about this, we generally try not to rebase the > branches, and the previous version is now deep in the git history of the > next/dt branch. > > Obviously having a missing signoff is also bad, but I think keeping > the old version of your branch is better in this case. Merging the > new branch on top of next/dt would give us a proper signoff chain on > each patch, but would not remove the patches with the missing > signoff. Instead we'd have lots of duplicate commits, which is probably > worse. I definitely understand that. The issue went since Chen-Yu was the initial committer, but due to last minute issues in some patches in that branch, I rebased it to drop those patches and sent it. So commits carrying Chen-Yu's SoB were now committed by me. I'm not sure if it makes it better, but anyway... It's up to you, and sorry for that mess :/ Maxime
On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 8:43 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:36 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Arnd, Olof, > > > > Here is a second attempt at the previous PR for the H3 and H5 changes, > > hopefully with the right SoB this time. It replaces the previous one. > > Hi Maxime, > > I'm not completely sure about this, we generally try not to rebase the > branches, and the previous version is now deep in the git history of the > next/dt branch. > > Obviously having a missing signoff is also bad, but I think keeping > the old version of your branch is better in this case. Merging the > new branch on top of next/dt would give us a proper signoff chain on > each patch, but would not remove the patches with the missing > signoff. Instead we'd have lots of duplicate commits, which is probably > worse. > > Olof, do you have any other ideas? We now have the history documented on the mailing list, so we can find the history if needed, and the missing signoff was by one of several co-maintainers so it's not ideal but also not catastrophic. We should probably get better at tooling for this instead (a pull request linter using Stephen's script or somesuch). -Olof