Re: [RFC] new -stable tag variant, Git workflow question

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
> 
> > Yeah. This new tagging scheme doesnt really allow anything 'new' per se 
> > - it just helps the existing practice some more. All these commits were 
> > -stable candidates anyway, in exactly the same order - the only 
> > difference the new tagging scheme adds here is a more organized, 
> > in-upsream-Git way of communicating it to you.
> 
> I am just a bystander, but if it were truly in-upstream-git way, 
> wouldn't you be forking a branch from the tagged target release (the 
> latest of 2.6.32.X), and queuing only the changes meant for -stable to 
> it, and giving the name of the branch to git people and sending out 
> patches from that branch for e-mailed review and application?
> 
> There won't be any special tagging required, only a dedicated branch.
> 
> Or am I missing something?

There's no Git flow towards -stable. It's either forwarded emails, or 
tags in the upstream kernel. Also, _only_ commits that were pulled by 
Linus are eligible for -stable.

So the pull requests all first go to Linus - then can any commit flow to 
-stable.

But even if it was possible to send pull requests to Greg, marking 
commits as -stable candidates is more natural in the commit log itself.

That informs people ('hey, that's a dangerous patch, dont mark it for 
-stable!!' or 'hey, why isnt this commit tagged to stable??'), and it 
also ensures it that only commits from Linus's tree flow towards 
-stable.

	Ingo