On Mon, Feb 20, 2023, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 14:54 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > +All topic branches, except for ``next`` and ``fixes``, are rolled into ``next`` > > +via a cthulu merge on an as-needed basis, i.e. when a topic branch is updated. > > +As a result, force pushes to ``next`` are common. > > + > > This makes 'next' an unfortunate name, doesn't it? Since branches > destined for "linux-next", which has been using that name for far > longer, have exactly the opposite expectation — that they have stable > commit IDs. I was coming at it from the viewpoint of linux-next itself, where HEAD is rebuilt nightly and thus is not stable. The inputs are stable, just not the merge commit. > Would 'staging' not be more conventional for the branch you describe? Not really? It's not a staging area, it really is the branch that contains the changes for the "next" kernel. What if I drop the above guidance and instead push a date-stamped tag when pushing to 'next'? That should ensure the base is reachable for everyone, and would also provide a paper trail for what I've done, which is probably a good idea regardless.
