From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Cutler Subject: Re: master vs. next Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 13:15:09 +0200 Message-ID: <5555D53D.7070400@suse.cz> References: <5555B1E9.3010003@suse.cz> <5555C495.8030804@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52074 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754791AbbEOLPM (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2015 07:15:12 -0400 Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171C7ADB5 for ; Fri, 15 May 2015 11:15:11 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ceph Development On 2015-05-15 12:45, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > If you need to fix something that is broken in next, then you target > next. I'm sure sometimes on an ad-hoc basis commits are cherry-picked > from master into next or even go directly into next to expedite things, > but that's rare and not something a newcomer should be concerned about. SubmittingPatches says to target next for bugfixes. So far I have only been pushing bugfixes, so I have been targeting that branch. And when the patch is merged, it goes directly into next. So I don't understand why you say that's rare and not something I should be concerned about? -- Nathan Cutler Software Engineer Distributed Storage SUSE LINUX, s.r.o. Tel.: +420 284 084 037