login
Header Space

 
 

Re: linux-next: first tree

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, <linux-next@...>, LKML <linux-kernel@...>, Linux IDE mailing list <linux-ide@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>
Date: Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 5:45 pm

James Bottomley wrote:


In practice, #upstream-fixes isn't very useful, because I send its 
contents to Linus very very rapidly once they are committed to that 
branch.  I then locally delete that branch once Linus merges it, and 
re-create it [again, locally] the next time I have some bug fixes to apply.

So it is a "somewhat throwaway" branch.

The main utility of #upstream-fixes is so that I can do
	git branch upstream-linus upstream-fixes
and then continue making commits in parallel with a Linus pull+push cycle.

The #upstream branch is much more useful, because that is where things 
for the next kernel are stored, during a bug-fix-only cycle.  This is 
largely equivalent to NEXT, though I plan to be more stringent in my 
requirements for NEXT commits than #upstream commits.

One thing to note is that "pure" rebases are somewhat rare; I much 
prefer to wait until the batch of commits lands in 
torvalds/linux-2.6.git, before I blow away and recreate (with a new 
torvalds HEAD) the branch in question.


So, to answer your question...  Fixes should go upstream fast enough 
that they should hit NEXT implicitly via a Linus pull+push.  It should 
be the union of two sets, yes, if a Linus cycle takes a long time.  When 
both #upstream and #upstream-fixes are active, I tend to always branch 
#upstream off of #upstream-fixes and/or do a "git pull . upstream-fixes" 
when updating #upstream.

	Jeff



--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 14, 9:35 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Paolo Ciarrocchi, (Mon Feb 18, 7:11 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Mon Feb 18, 9:15 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Artem Bityutskiy, (Mon Feb 18, 4:04 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Mon Feb 18, 4:29 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Mark M. Hoffman, (Sun Feb 17, 3:09 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Sun Feb 17, 7:27 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stefan Richter, (Sat Feb 16, 11:13 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Sat Feb 16, 11:40 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Bryan Wu, (Fri Feb 15, 4:33 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Sat Feb 16, 11:33 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Robin Getz, (Sat Feb 16, 10:23 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Sun Feb 17, 1:33 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, David Chinner, (Thu Feb 14, 7:17 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 14, 8:50 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, David Chinner, (Thu Feb 14, 9:10 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 14, 10:14 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Trond Myklebust, (Thu Feb 14, 6:27 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, J. Bruce Fields, (Fri Feb 15, 5:00 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Sat Feb 16, 11:37 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 14, 8:33 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Jeff Garzik, (Thu Feb 14, 5:03 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 14, 7:58 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, James Bottomley, (Thu Feb 14, 5:26 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Jeff Garzik, (Thu Feb 14, 5:45 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Jeff Garzik, (Thu Feb 14, 5:05 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Sam Ravnborg, (Thu Feb 14, 4:23 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 14, 7:35 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Greg KH, (Thu Feb 14, 4:20 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 14, 7:31 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Sam Ravnborg, (Thu Feb 14, 4:50 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 14, 7:52 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Yinghai Lu, (Thu Feb 14, 2:29 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Benny Halevy, (Thu Feb 14, 2:39 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, (Thu Feb 14, 1:38 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 14, 6:24 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Mauro Carvalho Chehab, (Mon Feb 18, 12:07 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Andy Whitcroft, (Thu Feb 14, 12:04 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Wed Feb 20, 10:23 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Randy Dunlap, (Wed Feb 20, 12:47 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Frank Seidel, (Thu Feb 21, 8:07 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 21, 8:28 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Frank Seidel, (Fri Feb 22, 1:41 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Fri Feb 22, 1:55 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Greg KH, (Thu Feb 21, 8:15 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Frank Seidel, (Fri Feb 22, 1:33 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Randy Dunlap, (Thu Feb 21, 8:12 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Frank Seidel, (Fri Feb 22, 1:31 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Harvey Harrison, (Thu Feb 21, 8:22 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Rafael J. Wysocki, (Thu Feb 14, 10:45 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 14, 11:00 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Len Brown, (Fri Feb 15, 12:58 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Fri Feb 15, 2:19 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Dave Kleikamp, (Thu Feb 14, 11:54 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 14, 6:01 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Paul Mundt, (Thu Feb 14, 11:49 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 14, 5:58 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Martin Schwidefsky, (Thu Feb 14, 11:25 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 14, 5:48 pm)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Jiri Kosina, (Thu Feb 14, 10:06 am)
Re: linux-next: first tree, Stephen Rothwell, (Thu Feb 14, 10:34 am)
speck-geostationary