From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2B7EDDE0D for ; Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:41:20 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Updates to powerpc.git From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Josh Boyer In-Reply-To: <20080709091846.69b08e34@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <1215588881.8970.358.camel@pasglop> <20080709091846.69b08e34@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:32:06 +1000 Message-Id: <1215833526.7549.141.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev list , Andrew Morton Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 09:18 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > If you want to use your master branch as a place for experimental > stuff, that's fine by me. But you'll want to keep next separate from > it so it's as "clean" as possible for those trying to track what is > definitely going into the next release. Yes. The idea is that "next" stays clean. > If it were up to me (which it's not), I would have master just track > Linus, next track what's going into the next release, and "bleeding" > or "experimental" track stuff that isn't fully vetted yet. I might > start doing that with my tree in the very near future. Why keeping a branch to track linus in my public tree ? I have plenty of these locally :-) > Also, Paul is pretty good about not rebasing his branches when at all > possible, and I suspect that's why his master and next were often the > same. It makes life lots easier for the sub-maintainers and anyone > trying to track against the tree. I humbly beg you to keep that > going. Yes. I intend to stay on that line, but as I'm new to the job, mistake are more likely to happen. Cheers, Ben.