Hi Jesper,

On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-fou=
ndation.org> wrote:
quoted text
>
>    But I'll actually happily handle trivial merges too, so this is by no=
=20
quoted text
>    means even a requirement - if the merge ends up being non-trivial, I'l=
l=20
quoted text
>    let people know anyway and either say "ok, that's so complicated, and =
I=20
quoted text
>    don't know the area well enough, so can you please do it for me", or=20
>    say "ok, I merged it, but can you please double-check the result".

This is also true for linux-next.

quoted text
> > Once the 2.6.27 merge window opens, ask you to pull the
> > 'for-linux-2.6.27' branch and once you have done so, leave that branch
> > alone forever.
> >
> > Branch off a new 'for-linux-2.6.28' branch and repeat.
>=20
> Yes. That's a good model.

I just have one request: instead of calling it for-linux-2.6.27, call it
for-next.  The when the merge window opens rename it to for-linus or
current or something and reset for-next to where you want to start
collecting stuff for 2.6.28.  That way you don't have to keep telling me
where the tree I fetch into linux-next is.

--=20
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/