Re: linux-next: first tree

Re: linux-next: first tree

[Jeff Garzik]

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'.

	Jeff

Re: linux-next: first tree

[Jeff Garzik]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 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.

Additional FYI:

Don't be worried if "git diff master..NEXT" is empty from time to time.

This condition occurs whenever the 'NEXT' queue is empty.

	Jeff

Re: linux-next: first tree

[James Bottomley]

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

Re: linux-next: first tree

[Jeff Garzik]

James Bottomley wrote:
> 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?


In practice, #upstream-fixes isn't very useful, because I send its 
contents to Linus very very rapidly once they are committed to that 
branch.  I then locally delete that branch once Linus merges it, and 
re-create it [again, locally] the next time I have some bug fixes to apply.

So it is a "somewhat throwaway" branch.

The main utility of #upstream-fixes is so that I can do
	git branch upstream-linus upstream-fixes
and then continue making commits in parallel with a Linus pull+push cycle.

The #upstream branch is much more useful, because that is where things 
for the next kernel are stored, during a bug-fix-only cycle.  This is 
largely equivalent to NEXT, though I plan to be more stringent in my 
requirements for NEXT commits than #upstream commits.

One thing to note is that "pure" rebases are somewhat rare; I much 
prefer to wait until the batch of commits lands in 
torvalds/linux-2.6.git, before I blow away and recreate (with a new 
torvalds HEAD) the branch in question.


So, to answer your question...  Fixes should go upstream fast enough 
that they should hit NEXT implicitly via a Linus pull+push.  It should 
be the union of two sets, yes, if a Linus cycle takes a long time.  When 
both #upstream and #upstream-fixes are active, I tend to always branch 
#upstream off of #upstream-fixes and/or do a "git pull . upstream-fixes" 
when updating #upstream.

	Jeff

Re: linux-next: first tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 676 bytes --]

Hi Jeff,

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:03:19 -0500 Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

Added, thanks.

> 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'.

Sounds like a good plan.

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

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