> On Jan 6, 2016, at 7:28 AM, Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 02:22:41PM +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote: >> As I wrote here, the bits are already @ kernel.org >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dledford/rdma.git k.o/for-4.5 > > Ok, that's a little confusing. > > Doug, any chance you could settle on one tree? I don't really care > which one.
I use both, but for different things. For instance, when I had 9 out of 10 of Sagi’s patches for iSER applied and was waiting on the 10th patch to complete the set, I was willing to push that to my github tree so Sagi could check out how the first 9 had gone and double check my merge fixups while he rebased the 10th patch, but I didn’t want to push it to k.o. I don’t rebase on k.o, ever (something Linus was adamant about when I started doing this). But the github repo is released earlier and may be rebased. If it is a smooth merge window, there is little, if any, difference between the two. Only during merge windows when I am looking at different alternatives of controversial stuff does this seem to be an issue.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
