Updates to powerpc.git

[Kumar Gala]

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 <galak at kernel.crashing.org 
>>> > 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