Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

[Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1619 bytes --]

Hi Greg,

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:50:55 -0800 Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
>
> What's the best way to constantly follow this tree?  I had cloned it a
> while ago, but now if I 'git pull' it wants to merge things, which isn't
> right.
> 
> I'm guessing that this is constantly being rebased?  Against what,
> Linus's tree?  So we should be able to clone Linus's tree, and then pull
> in -next?

That would work.  Chris has the right idea, though.  Just set up
linux-next as a remote on any existing clone of Linus' tree and the
"fetch" will forcibly update the linux-next/master branch (remember to
not have that branch checked out when you fetch).

If you keep a continuing git tree for this, you will have the history of
all the next trees because I tag each one.

> Or am I totally missing something here?

I said in the original announcement that the "master" branch would be
rebasing every day (well, I actually said that I would recreate the tree
every day).

Each day, I start with the latest version of Linus' tree (my "stable"
branch) and then merge all the subsystem trees on that.

> I like seeing these, to know that things are at least still working.  I
> imagine you could script them, or just send them to the linux-next list
> if there are no problems, but lkml should probably be notified of any
> issues, right?

Sounds like a plan.  So new "normal" announcements will happen on the
linux-next mailing list and "abnormal" ones to LKML as well (at least).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]