[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7vhbt23x1m.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:11:17 -0800
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC] new -stable tag variant, Git workflow question
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
> Yeah. This new tagging scheme doesnt really allow anything 'new' per se
> - it just helps the existing practice some more. All these commits were
> -stable candidates anyway, in exactly the same order - the only
> difference the new tagging scheme adds here is a more organized,
> in-upsream-Git way of communicating it to you.
I am just a bystander, but if it were truly in-upstream-git way, wouldn't
you be forking a branch from the tagged target release (the latest of
2.6.32.X), and queuing only the changes meant for -stable to it, and
giving the name of the branch to git people and sending out patches from
that branch for e-mailed review and application?
There won't be any special tagging required, only a dedicated branch.
Or am I missing something?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists