[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B13A015.8010407@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:36:05 +0100
From: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
AnĂbal Monsalve Salazar
<anibal@...ian.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-kbuild.git
On 29.11.2009 22:57, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:42:37 +0100 Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz> wrote:
>> I plan to maintain such a branch, but I thought I would base the
>> for-next branch on top of it, so that you get everything in one pack. Or
>> would you still prefer to have two kbuild branches in linux-next, so
>> that you can remove the for-next branch if necessary and keep the
>> for-current branch? Just tell me what fits you best.
>
> Running a for-current branch allows you to queue up urgent fixes without
> disrupting your for-next branch. I will merge such a branch early on
> (actually before I do my first build) so that I don't have to worry about
> problems that are already have fixes pending for to be merged by Linus in
> his current tree. Also, as you say, if I have problems with your
> for-next branch, it does not affect the more urgent patches.
OK, I created a for-linus branch in git://repo.or.cz/linux-kbuild.git.
Currently it's empty, as there are no urgent kbuild fixes for 2.6.32.
Michal
--
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