Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Any feedback for -next?

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:10:17AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 8/12/26 08:59, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Aug 2026, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 04:42:21 -0700
> > > Breno Leitao <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 05:54:59PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > Would getting rid of these ephemeral commits make linux-next easier
> > > > to work with?

> > > This has come up at the Maintainers Summit in the past. I believe it is
> > > even in the article I posted earlier in another thread.

> > >     https://lwn.net/Articles/1050027/

> > > We are even discussing issues about this in that other thread as well:

> > >    https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/

> > > I try to keep my linux-next branch clean, but I do rebase to add tags. I do
> > > on occasion remove commits if they prove to be totally broken. That's rare
> > > but I rather have that then having to push something to Linus where a bunch
> > > of commits are simply reverted.

> > +1

> > FWIW, I have always reserved the right to rebase in order to remove,
> > move around, reword and otherwise fix-up commits and do so often.  To
> > that end my 'next' branches are not, have ever been, nor do I intend
> > them to ever be, stable.

> Same here.

I do it as a last resort, but its better to avoid having bug+fix things
hitting upstream, i.e. trying to help with upstream bisectability.

- Arnaldo