On 07/20/2017 05:27 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 09:24:58AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:

quoted

On 07/19/2017 11:38 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:55:23PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
FWIW, people building from the git tree are probably using the
master branch (v4.11.0), not the for-next branch. I used to stage
all the -rcX releases in the master branch, which was why I was
confused by this at first. Never mind, I'll update my scripts that
haven't been pulling the xfsprogs for-next branch from kernel.org...

yeah, I was doing that when I was new to the maintainer game, for-next
was rebasable and more forgiving.  Maybe I should change that back.

Yeah, for-next is more forgiving, but if you are tagging stuff for
releases (even -rc) then it probably should have been merged back
into the master branch and then tagged. I've always worked under the
assumption that -rc releases are "stable" release points because you
are asking the wider public to use and test the release....

i.e. If stuff needs to be undone after a -rc release then we should
use reverts that explain why something was undone - rebasing the
entire dev branch to remove the problem from recorded history means
we can't easily find out why that thing caused problems years down
the track.

Fair enough, I'll switch back to that method, pushing things to
master more often, at least by the -rc stage.

-Eric