Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: clarify the need to sending reverts as patches
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Date: 2023-03-27 17:52:33
Also in:
linux-doc
On 3/27/2023 10:26 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
We don't state explicitly that reverts need to be submitted as a patch. It occasionally comes up. Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> --- CC: corbet@lwn.net CC: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org --- Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst index e31d7a951073..f6983563ff06 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst@@ -184,11 +184,18 @@ Handling misapplied patches Occasionally a patch series gets applied before receiving critical feedback, or the wrong version of a series gets applied. -There is no revert possible, once it is pushed out, it stays like that. + +Making the patch disappear once it is pushed out is not possible, the commit +history in netdev trees is stable. Please send incremental versions on top of what has been merged in order to fix the patches the way they would look like if your latest patch series was to be merged. +In cases where full revert is needed the revert has to be submitted +as a patch to the list with a commit message explaining the technical +problems with the reverted commit. Reverts should be used as a last resort, +when original change is completely wrong; incremental fixes are preferred. +
This is much clearer. It highlights that you won't rewind/modify history, and explains the desire for incremental fixes better. Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Stable tree ~~~~~~~~~~~