Re: linux-next: first tree

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 16:03 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Also, more trees please ...  :-) 
> 
> Please add the 'NEXT' branch of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/libata-dev.git
> 
> to your list.  This is a throwaway meta-branch that is rebased often.
> 
> The 'master' branch of libata-dev.git always contains the base commit 
> from torvalds/linux-2.6.git from which all other branches are based.  I 
> never ever commit to the 'master' branch, only update it from 
> torvalds/linux-2.6.git.
> 
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> I will continue to maintain the 'ALL' branch exactly as before.  It may 
> contain changes not suitable for 'NEXT', but suitable for -mm testing.
> 
> In my new development process, things will almost always land in 'ALL' 
> before 'NEXT'.

So does this indicate the meaning of upstream and upstream-fixes is
still the same?  I always took upstream-fixes to be bug fixes for this
-rc and upstream as queued for the next merge window, in which case NEXT
would be the union of those two sets?

James