Updates to powerpc.git

[Josh Boyer]

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