Re: GIT and the current -stable

Julian Phillips
2007-04-14T19:28:17Z

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, Chris Wright wrote:

> * Brian Gernhardt (benji@silverinsanity.com) wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 2007, at 4:34 AM, Chris Wright wrote:
>>> I've already put a tree like this up on kernel.org. The master branch
>>> is Linus' tree, and there's branches for each of the stable releases
>>> called linux-2.6.[12-20].y (I didn't add 2.6.11.y).
>>>
>>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6-stable.git;a=summary
>>
>> Is HEAD for that repo the most recent stable branch, or (as gitweb
>> makes it look) Linus's head. I'd expect a "-stable" repo to point at
>> the most recent stable commit, not the most recent development
>> commit. And I'd also expect gitweb's summary page to show the
>> shortlog for HEAd. One of my assumptions are being broken and I
>> don't like it. It leaves me all confused...
>
> As I mentioned. The master branch (HEAD) is Linus' tree, and each
> stable tree is on its own branch. You'll find shortlog summarizes the
> main branch, so yes, gitweb's summary is a bit confusing based on your
> assumptions. This is a new tree and hasn't been publicized until now.
> It does make sense to have its head be the newest stable, I'll switch
> that around.

Would it not make more sense to point HEAD at the linux-2.6.20-y branch
and either let master be Linus' tree or simply not have a master branch?
Otherwise, what happens to master when the latest stable tree becomes
linux-2.6.21-y?

--
Julian

---
Most people want either less corruption or more of a chance to
participate in it.