Re: nicer frontend to get rebased tree?

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Aug 23, 2008, 15:55 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0808230853170.3363@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080823071014.GT23334@one.firstfloor.org>

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

>
> > Exactly. Don't rebase. And don't base your development on somebody who 
> > does.
> 
> That's pretty much impossible in the current state of Linux development
> as far as I know.

Note that the "don't rebase" (as usual) only concerns your published tree. You can certainly rebase non-published stuff.

As to the "don't base your development on somebody who does" - base your development either on my tree (I don't rebase) or talk to the d*ck-head that you _want_ to work with, but who rebases.

> > Remember how I told you that you should never rebase?
> 
> I suspect your recommendation does not match real world git use.

A lot of the trees don't rebase. The rest of the trees may not realize that somebody wants to work on top of them.

And linux-next has _never_ been appropriate as a development base for other reasons, so forget about linux-next. It's to find merge conflicts and possibly boot/test failures of the trees it contains, not for anything else.

			Linus