Updates to powerpc.git
Josh Boyer
jwboyer at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Thu Jul 10 03:21:44 EST 2008
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:47:45 -0500
Kumar Gala <galak at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> 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).
Yes. The proliferation of "trees" is getting to be a bit ridiculous.
We have Linus, -next, -mm, -staging, plus all the subsystem variants of
those.
The answer to "What tree do I develop against" _should_ be -next, but
sometimes that isn't the case and finding the answer isn't getting
easier.
josh
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list