Hi Christoph!

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:19:58AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:

quoted

Sure, it would have been nicer for everyone involved if Daniel would
have kept the original patches and added new patches to clean it up on
top of that to preserve the history.

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Christoph Hellwig [off-list ref] wrote:

No, it would be a complete fucking mess that way. ?We tell people to
submit standalone and well formed patches all the time. ?Why would it
make any difference just because they were also commited to a shitty git
tree somewhere else?

We also tell people to submit crap into tree all the time - it's
called staging! We also merge full history from time to time like in
the case of btrfs.

Usually even "shitty git trees" have value in the history for people
who're interested why the code is the way it is. But as people who
actually looked at the patches, it doesn't apply here.

                        Pekka