From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jwboyer@gmail.com>
Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com (rn-out-0910.google.com [64.233.170.185])
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DB4DDE09
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:31:44 +1000 (EST)
Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id j40so949683rnf.16
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Updates to powerpc.git
From: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20080709162008.GC28130@secretlab.ca>
References: <1215588881.8970.358.camel@pasglop>
	<7CAAEE49-56F0-4565-8F1B-374C5E2F9E42@kernel.crashing.org>
	<20080710020832.3e654bc9.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
	<20080709162008.GC28130@secretlab.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:31:33 -0400
Message-Id: <1215621093.32502.1.camel@weaponx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
Reply-To: jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 10:20 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 02:08:32AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Kumar,
> > 
> > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:58:38 -0500 Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > What is your intent with the 'master' branch?  I hope you do NOT plan  
> > > on ever rebasing it.  I assume if a patch gets into master and we drop  
> > > it you'll do a git-revert of it?
> > 
> > "Ever" is such a strong word.  Even Paul on occasion rebased his master
> > branch.  I see no reason why Ben could not run his master (or maybe
> > better named "test") branch as a place that patches come and go and his
> > "next" branch as something that never (or very rarely) gets rebased with
> > commits progressing from master (test) to next when he is satisfied with
> > them. People should then base further work in the "next" branch.
> 
> I was under the impression that there was some consensus that -next
> branches should be used for unstable experiments.  Am I mistaken?

Yes,  you are.  It's slightly confusing.  -next branches are for things
decidedly going into the "next" release of the kernel.  If they are
unstable, they aren't really proven to be ready then.

josh