Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 28.08.2012 16:27, schrieb Eduardo Habkost: >> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 02:55:56PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> >> On 28 August 2012 14:30, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> - 1.2 branching, or creation of a "cpu-next" tree where "good to be >> >>> merged" patches can live until 1.2 is done; >> >> >> >> With 1.3 due for release in just over a week, it seems unlikely >> >> that it's worth branching at this point... >> > >> > Well, the closer to the release, the smaller the cost of branching as we >> > won't have many patches entering the 1.2 branch, anyway. >> >> The idea behind the new release model is to never branch for releases, >> so that we can easily bisect between v1.2 and v1.3, both tags being on >> the same branch. So I don't think a 1.2 branch is likely. > > That means that every branch to be merged after 1.2 has to be rebased on > top of 1.2 before being merged? I'd prefer not to do next trees unless it's for a clear subsystem that already exists and will continue to exist. If someone wants to be a CPU subsystem maintainer, that's great, and we can keep the tree open regardless of the release. But just having a temporary tree for 3 weeks is more pain than it's worth. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > -- > Eduardo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
