On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:42:57PM -0800, David Miller wrote:Right. I'm wondering what the problems are that you see with that. The advantages include earlier warning of merge problems, and avoidance of duplicate commits--if Jeff's done work that depends on patches that already upstream, then he either does that work against upstream, or includes backported patches in the branch he asks you to pull, and you end up with both the original and the backported patch. Which isn't the end of the world, but the resulting history seems messier than necessary. Or I guess you could both wait to do this merge until you're ready to pull in Linus's latest? For non-git-using testers there may be an advantage to always keeping a tree based on the latest tagged release, as it may simplify providing them with patches in some cases. But if the goal is to provide a basis for other maintainer's work, I'd've thought the best policy would be just to track the tip of every relevant branch (which includes Linus's in this case). --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Artem Bityutskiy | [PATCH 10/44 take 2] [UBI] debug unit implementation |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 004/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingPatches |
| Trent Piepho | [PATCH] [POWERPC] Improve (in|out)_beXX() asm code |
| Dave Young | Re: Linux v2.6.24-rc1 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
