Re: Updates to powerpc.git

On Jul 9, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 10:20 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 02:08:32AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

quoted

Kumar,

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:58:38 -0500 Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org 

quoted

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