On 05/09/2025 13:37, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 12:21:40PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: >> You should really base on mm-new. >> >> You need to account for everything that is potentially going to go >> upstream. mm-stable is generally not actually populated all too well until >> shortly before merge window anyway. > Just to note that mm-unstable is also fine. Despite its name, it's > substantially > more stable than mm-new, which can even break the build and appears to have no > checks performed on it at all.
Thanks for the overview - I had a general idea about those branches but I wasn't sure what the standard practice was. I'll rebase on mm-unstable to start with. - Kevin
