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

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:
>>>> Any other ideas?
>>>
>>> I'm new to this area, so please forgive what might be a silly
>>> question: would it make sense for maintainers' -next trees to keep
>>> a stable git history?
>>>
>>> Some maintainer trees are already stable and append-only, which
>>> gives linux-next users/testers stable commits to point to, instead
>>> of ephemeral commits that can disappear later due to history
>>> rewrites.
>>>
>>> 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.

Guenter