From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] drivers/drm/i915 maintenance process Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:43:35 -0700 Message-ID: <20110606164335.10bdea9d@jbarnes-desktop> References: <20110606133618.478fc5d9@jbarnes-desktop> <20110606163025.5b1bfdee@jbarnes-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110606163025.5b1bfdee@jbarnes-desktop> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Keith Packard Cc: "drivers, Intel" , linux-kernel , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:30:25 -0700 Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:24:46 -0700 > Keith Packard wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:36:18 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > > > Can you keep drm-intel-next fairly up to date with respect to the fixes > > > branch? I.e. keep it a superset of drm-intel-fixes for the most part? > > > > Yes, I wanted to do that now, but -fixes is not a fast-forward from > > -next and I thought I shouldn't be doing rebases. > > You shouldn't if your downstream is using git trees and you're pulling > from them, but it depends on your downstream. In my particular case, > I'm ok with rebases if it means I get fixes. :) Oh and the other big reason is testing. rebase generally voids previous testing since you have new bits, so Linus really hates to see a rebase just before a pull request, and I think Dave does too. But rebasing for good reason (e.g. to make your -next branch a superset of your -fixes branch) on occasion is fine. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center