On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 10:20 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 02:08:32AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Kumar, > > > > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:58:38 -0500 Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > What is your intent with the 'master' branch? I hope you do NOT plan > > > on ever rebasing it. I assume if a patch gets into master and we drop > > > it you'll do a git-revert of it? > > > > "Ever" is such a strong word. Even Paul on occasion rebased his master > > branch. I see no reason why Ben could not run his master (or maybe > > better named "test") branch as a place that patches come and go and his > > "next" branch as something that never (or very rarely) gets rebased with > > commits progressing from master (test) to next when he is satisfied with > > them. People should then base further work in the "next" branch. > > I was under the impression that there was some consensus that -next > branches should be used for unstable experiments. Am I mistaken?
Yes, you are. It's slightly confusing. -next branches are for things decidedly going into the "next" release of the kernel. If they are unstable, they aren't really proven to be ready then. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
