On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:30:25 -0700 Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:24:46 -0700 > Keith Packard <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:36:18 -0700, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Can you keep drm-intel-next fairly up to date with respect to the fixes > > > branch? I.e. keep it a superset of drm-intel-fixes for the most part? > > > > Yes, I wanted to do that now, but -fixes is not a fast-forward from > > -next and I thought I shouldn't be doing rebases. > > You shouldn't if your downstream is using git trees and you're pulling > from them, but it depends on your downstream. In my particular case, > I'm ok with rebases if it means I get fixes. :) Oh and the other big reason is testing. rebase generally voids previous testing since you have new bits, so Linus really hates to see a rebase just before a pull request, and I think Dave does too. But rebasing for good reason (e.g. to make your -next branch a superset of your -fixes branch) on occasion is fine. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
