Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] check-attr: add support to work with revisions

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, toon@iotcl.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] check-attr: add support to work with revisions
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 08:26:28 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqq8rj7kk0r.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221216093552.3171319-1-karthik.188@gmail.com> (Karthik Nayak's message of "Fri, 16 Dec 2022 10:35:50 +0100")

Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com> writes:

> Changes since version 2:
> - Changes to the commit message [1/2] to use more specific terms and to
>   be more descriptive.
> - Moved the flag's position in the documentation to be before the unbound
>   list of non-options.
>
> Range-diff against v2:
>
> 1:  2e71cbbddd < -:  ---------- Git 2.39-rc2
> -:  ---------- > 1:  57e2c6ebbe Start the 2.40 cycle

Does this new iteration use something that was added between these
two bases?  Asking because the choice of new base is questionable.
I would understand it if the rebase were on top of v2.39.0 tag,
though.

 * If the updated series depends on new APIs and features added
   since the old base, do rebase on the new one to take advantage of
   them.

 * A bugfix patch series may want to avoid using the newest and
   greatest if it allows the series to be applied to the older
   maintenance track, and keeping the older base may make more
   sense.

 * If a series based on an older base no longer merges cleanly to
   'master' and/or 'next', but rebasing on a newer base makes it
   merge cleanly, do rebase.

 * Otherwise, keeping the same base is preferred.

When rebasing is appropriate, choosing a well-known base (e.g. a
tagged release) helps others.