From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.30]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81D6DE38E for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:20:12 +1000 (EST) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so771614yxg.39 for ; Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:20:08 -0600 From: Grant Likely To: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: Updates to powerpc.git Message-ID: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20080710020832.3e654bc9.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: Grant Likely Cc: linuxppc-dev list , Andrew Morton List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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? g.