Junio C Hamano wrote: > Raman Gupta <rocketraman@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Junio C Hamano wrote: >> ... >> If you wish to remove discussion of 'next' from this document, that is >> probably better done in a separate followup change. Though personally >> I think its a useful concept for readers to learn about as they are >> setting up their own workflows. > > I do not have a particularly strong feeling about 'next' either way. > > As the document states at the top, it lists ingredients from git.git > management and it is left up to the readers to adopt parts that suit their > needs, while not using others. In that spirit, the description of 'next' > as "ahead of master that is supposed to be rock solid" may be a good thing > to keep. It is orthogonal if the project wants to rewind and rebuild > 'next' after every feature release---they do not need to (and we didn't do > so for quite some time). One valid choice by readers is to adopt the > concept of 'next' in their project but never rewind and rebuild it, and > you made that clear that it is optional. So I think this part of your > patch is good as-is. It might be useful to add some explanation of why one would want to rewind and rebuild vs simply continue as is. I guess the advantage is that the history for next starts out nice and clean for the next release, without any cruft from repeated merging of topic branches. The disadvantage is that one must publish the operation and all forks must deal with the rebase. Any other thoughts? Cheers, Raman -- 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
