Re: Regulator updates for 3.3

From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Jan 10, 2012, 23:17 UTC
Message-ID: <20120110231700.GA14242@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxvQF=Bm4ae6euB_UO8otMCuN9Lv37Zn3TpE-L7JH3Kzw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 02:54:27PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Mark Brown

> > Especially in the cases where the lack of the bug fix breaks the new
> > code it sems sensible enough to want to do the merges so that the
> > history includes things that actually work.

> So I don't mind merges if they have a lear reason for existing.

OK, good - I figured that was the case but wanted to make sure as you were stating things rather more strongly than that.

Just to warn you there's also a whole stack of similar merges going to come in via the sound tree too due to the same workflow, I *could* try to rebuild the history and ask Takashi to redo his tree using that but there's a lot of history there and it'd be hard to figure out which of the merges was actually important. Is it OK to leave things as they are for this release?

> So right now "git merge" (and "git pull") make it too easy to make
> those meaningless merge commits. If instead of seven pointless merges
> you had (say) had two merges that had messages about *why* they
> weren't pointless, I'd be perfectly happy.

> Addid junio and git to the cc just to bring up this issue of bad UI
> once again. I realize it could break old scripts to start up an editor
> window, but still..

I'd use a configuration option that popped up an editor by default, even if I did have to manually enable it.