On Jul 9, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
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.
Did, GregKH start up a tree for code not quite ready ( -staging).
I think master and -next should not be rebased (if it can be
avoided). and -staging can be.
- k
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
