On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, Chris Wright wrote:

* Brian Gernhardt (benji@silverinsanity.com) wrote:

quoted

On Apr 14, 2007, at 4:34 AM, Chris Wright wrote:

quoted

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.