[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZxiN3aINYI4u8pRx@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 22:47:09 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull
requests
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 04:12:43AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> You mean have everything go into linux-next before going to Linus after -rc1?
>
> I'm one that doesn't do this. That's because my code in linux-next
> after -rc1 is for the next merge window, and the code I send to Linus
> is only fixes for code I sent before -rc1. I tend to keep an "urgent"
> and "core" branch. My "core" branch is everything I plan to send in the
> next merge window and goes into linux-next (via being pulled into my
> for-next branch). After I send my pull request to Linus, and he pulls
> it in the merge window, that "core" branch becomes my "urgent" branch.
You can easily have two branches in linux-next. Many trees do that.
It is also a really nice warning about self-conflicts.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists