Re: Slaughtering the sacred cow

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

Michael J Gruber wrote:
> I don't pretend to have a perfect solution for this, but I'm wondering
> whether a longer-lived for-1.x.0 branch (with or without an extra pu,
> i.e. not rewinding itself [leaving that for the extra pu] or rewinding)
> would be feasible which gets everything from next-master-maint and which
> would also be a place to cook larger structural, backwards incompatible
> changes. An alternative would be to have a branch like that for a
> specific large topic (like one of the above) and focus on that for the
> upcoming release.

I'm relatively new to the list but from what I've seen, I think
keeping a longer-lived branch that accepts less-than-complete patches
is a good idea. Small patches that break backward compatibility are
often criticized (often leading to rejection), while larger patches
with the promise of showing the whole picture often tend to be ignored
due to their sheer size.

-- Ram
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]