And you just lost some useful information. The fact that so-and-so did
fix A and then did B is actually useful. It tells me that A didn't work
and B does. You think it's "crap" and by tossing it dooms all future
developers to rethink the A->B transition.
There is a reason that commercial companies guard their revision history
and fight like mad to preserve it. It contains useful information,
even the bad stuff is useful.
Some stuff may be so bad that it shouldn't ever get in the tree, but you
don't accept anything at all from those people in general. If Al Viro
takes one pass at a problem and it works well enough that it gets in
the tree, and then later does a pass two that cleans it up, I can learn
from that. That's very useful information, his brain frequently shines
a light in a dark corner but I'd miss a lot of that without the history.
Your approach is constantly dropping useful information on the floor.
It may not be useful to you but it's useful to virtually everyone
else. Saving that information will increase the quality and reduce
the quantity of the patches you get.
----- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/