On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:47:45 -0500 Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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). Yes. The proliferation of "trees" is getting to be a bit ridiculous. We have Linus, -next, -mm, -staging, plus all the subsystem variants of those. The answer to "What tree do I develop against" _should_ be -next, but sometimes that isn't the case and finding the answer isn't getting easier. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
