Subject: Re: Updates to powerpc.git

From: Josh Boyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:31:33 -0400

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 <[email-masked]> 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.

josh