From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com (e34.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e34.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58A0BDDFC1 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:25:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m69HP80O030621 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:25:08 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m69HP8e4087010 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:25:08 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m69HP7np020884 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:25:07 -0600 Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:21:44 -0400 From: Josh Boyer To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: Updates to powerpc.git Message-ID: <20080709132144.2443ea48@zod.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4BD688FB-13AF-4076-BF9A-1F7BEA7E7D65@kernel.crashing.org> 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> <1215621093.32502.1.camel@weaponx> <4BD688FB-13AF-4076-BF9A-1F7BEA7E7D65@kernel.crashing.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:47:45 -0500 Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Jul 9, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > 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 >>> > 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. > > Did, GregKH start up a tree for code not quite ready ( -staging). Yes. The proliferation of "trees" is getting to be a bit ridiculous. We have Linus, -next, -mm, -staging, plus all the subsystem variants of those. The answer to "What tree do I develop against" _should_ be -next, but sometimes that isn't the case and finding the answer isn't getting easier. josh