Subject: Re: SubmittingPatchs: clarify choice of base and testing

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:31:32 -0700

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]> writes:

> Maybe it would be useful to have a CI target that merged to next/master
> and reported how that went? It would have to be a soft failure, as we
> might have an easy merge conflict, or someone's pushing a revision to a
> topic that's already in "next" or "seen" (and might conflict). But
> having it as an FYI might be helpful.

Sorry, but it would defeat the whole point of this suggestion.
Letting CI do it to allow contributors not to worry about other
people's work is the *last* thing I want to encourage.  I want
to see people get in the habit of making trial merges and ensuring
their work works in the wider context than just "my patches work in
'master'---it is not my problem if it does not work when patches
other people already wrote are present". 

> This seems like a good clarification, but partially unrelated to the
> $subject, i.e. just the last bullet point is directly relevant, the
> first two are new general advice. Perhaps split those out into another
> commit?

Not really.  The original didn't say in what situations you would
want to refer to other commits.  Clarifying that made a three-bullet
list, and all three are equally relevant.

Thanks.