Message ID | 20240520121223.5be06e39.alex.williamson@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] VFIO updates for v6.10-rc1 | expand |
On Mon, 20 May 2024 at 11:12, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote: > > I've provided the simplified diffstat from a temporary merge branch to > avoid the noise of merging QAT dependencies from a branch provided by > Herbert. The diffstat looks good, but the merge itself sucks. This is the totality of the "explanation" in the merge commit: "". Yup. That's it. Nothing. Nada. If you cannot explain *why* you merged a branch from some other tree, youi damn well shouldn't have done the merge in the first place. Merge commits need explanations just like regular commits do. In fact, because there isn't some obvious diff attached to them, explanations are arguably even more needed. I've pulled this, but dammit, why does this keep happening? Linus
The pull request you sent on Mon, 20 May 2024 12:12:23 -0600:
> https://github.com/awilliam/linux-vfio.git tags/vfio-v6.10-rc1
has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/30aec6e1bb617e1349d7fa5498898d7d4351d71e
Thank you!
On Mon, 20 May 2024 15:05:26 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, 20 May 2024 at 11:12, Alex Williamson > <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > I've provided the simplified diffstat from a temporary merge branch to > > avoid the noise of merging QAT dependencies from a branch provided by > > Herbert. > > The diffstat looks good, but the merge itself sucks. > > This is the totality of the "explanation" in the merge commit: "". > > Yup. That's it. Nothing. Nada. > > If you cannot explain *why* you merged a branch from some other tree, > youi damn well shouldn't have done the merge in the first place. > > Merge commits need explanations just like regular commits do. In fact, > because there isn't some obvious diff attached to them, explanations > are arguably even more needed. > > I've pulled this, but dammit, why does this keep happening? Sorry. In my case I've looked through logs and I've seen bare merges in the past and I guess I assumed the reasoning here would be more obvious. Clearly that's wrong. I'll do better. Thanks, Alex
On Mon, 20 May 2024 at 16:03, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com> wrote: > > Sorry. In my case I've looked through logs and I've seen bare merges in > the past and I guess I assumed the reasoning here would be more obvious. Yeah, the bare merges in the past is why I'm so frustrated about this all. I don't understand why this keeps happening so much. Who do people keep doing this thing where they just think "I don't need to explain this thing". Yes, git made merges easy. It was one of the design goals, since (a) I do a lot of them and (b) it's what EVERY OTHER SCM historically absolutely sucked at. But just because merging used to be hard, and git made it so easy, doesn't mean that people should then not even explain them. I complained to Andrew this merge window about one of his pull requests that had _seven_ pointless and totally unexplained merges. It's like people do this operation in their sleep or something, and don't think about how big an operation a merge is. Linus