On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 09:18 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > If you want to use your master branch as a place for experimental > stuff, that's fine by me. But you'll want to keep next separate from > it so it's as "clean" as possible for those trying to track what is > definitely going into the next release.
Yes. The idea is that "next" stays clean. > If it were up to me (which it's not), I would have master just track > Linus, next track what's going into the next release, and "bleeding" > or "experimental" track stuff that isn't fully vetted yet. I might > start doing that with my tree in the very near future. Why keeping a branch to track linus in my public tree ? I have plenty of these locally :-) > Also, Paul is pretty good about not rebasing his branches when at all > possible, and I suspect that's why his master and next were often the > same. It makes life lots easier for the sub-maintainers and anyone > trying to track against the tree. I humbly beg you to keep that > going. Yes. I intend to stay on that line, but as I'm new to the job, mistake are more likely to happen. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev