[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091110212501.GA13558@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:25:01 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:11:17PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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?
Yes, these are patches going to Linus's tree, which would be 2.6.33 at
the time. I need to know the ids to add them back to the older .32.y
tree.
hope this helps,
greg k-h
--
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