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 1883ADDEDC for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:03:53 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <4BD688FB-13AF-4076-BF9A-1F7BEA7E7D65@kernel.crashing.org> From: Kumar Gala To: jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <1215621093.32502.1.camel@weaponx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Subject: Re: Updates to powerpc.git Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:47:45 -0500 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> 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 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). I think master and -next should not be rebased (if it can be avoided). and -staging can be. - k