On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 08:19:04PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:Right, but so long as a subsystem maintainer doesn't publish his/her topic branches, and only sends out patches on their topic branches for discussion via e-mail, they're fine, right? They can just rebase up until the point where the patch goes on a non-'pu' or non-'linux-next' branch. Basically, this would be the subsystem maintainer sometimes wearing an "end-point-developer" hat, and sometimes wearing a "subsystem maintainer" hat. So rebasing is fine as long as it's clear that it's happening on branches which are not meant as a base for submaintainers. I believe Junio does this himself for his own topic branches while developing git, yes? And that's probably a good reason for him not actually *publishing* any of his topic branches, and only the 'pu' branch, which is well known to be a bad idea for folks to use as a branch point, since it is constantly getting rebased. Heh, can't really argue with your point here. - Ted --
| Andreas Gruenbacher | Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching |
| Alan Cox | Re: [patch 7/8] fdmap v2 - implement sys_socket2 |
| Jens Axboe | Re: regression: CD burning (k3b) went broke |
| Paul E. McKenney | Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures |
git: | |
| KOSAKI Motohiro | [bug?] tg3: Failed to load firmware "tigon/tg3_tso.bin" |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Alexey Dobriyan | [PATCH 09/33] netns ct: per-netns /proc/net/nf_conntrack, /proc/net/stat/nf_conntr... |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 18/37] dccp: Support for Mandatory options |
