From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DB491164 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 15:50:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA25071C for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 15:50:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 11:50:08 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: "Paul E. McKenney" Message-ID: <20180905115008.22e3d21f@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20180905150315.GA10819@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1536142432.8121.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20180905113715.GJ9781@sirena.org.uk> <20180905150315.GA10819@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Distribution kernel bugzillas considered harmful List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 08:03:15 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > I am one of those strange people who rebase in order to improve > bisectability. But one reason I can do that is that I have relatively > few patches, and it gets harder the more patches I am carrying. I suppose > that someone (not me!) could rebase -stable to make it more bisectable, How would rebasing it make stable more bisectable? Once you rebase, you don't have a tree that use to work? Although I guess you may find the commit that caused the problem better. But rebasing creates a lot of other issues, I would not recommend rebasing stable, as that would totally break the RT stable tree work flow. -- Steve > but that sounds difficult, painful, and error-prone. Could added tooling > make bisection work better? Sounds valuable, but non-trivial.