On 29.11.2009 22:57, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:42:37 +0100 Michal Marek <mmarek@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> I plan to maintain such a branch, but I thought I would base the >> for-next branch on top of it, so that you get everything in one pack. Or >> would you still prefer to have two kbuild branches in linux-next, so >> that you can remove the for-next branch if necessary and keep the >> for-current branch? Just tell me what fits you best. > > Running a for-current branch allows you to queue up urgent fixes without > disrupting your for-next branch. I will merge such a branch early on > (actually before I do my first build) so that I don't have to worry about > problems that are already have fixes pending for to be merged by Linus in > his current tree. Also, as you say, if I have problems with your > for-next branch, it does not affect the more urgent patches. OK, I created a for-linus branch in git://repo.or.cz/linux-kbuild.git. Currently it's empty, as there are no urgent kbuild fixes for 2.6.32. Michal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
