On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 21:31 +0000, Hefty, Sean wrote:
> Doug,
>
> Do you plan on only using your kernel.org tree going forward, or will you maintain your github tree as well?
I plan to keep both repos. The one on github will have stuff sooner,
but it is likely that portions of it will see rebases. I've taken to a
very obvious branch naming scheme if I think that I'm going to rebase a
branch. I'm also keeping the github repo as the one I have in the 0day
testing framework so that more of the stuff gets tested sooner.
When I'm satisfied that a branch has passed all of the 0day testing and
I'm no longer going to consider any changes to the patches in that
branch, then I'll make a k.o/<branchname> branch and I only push those
branches to the kernel.org repo. Once a branch lands there, it is a
fast-forward only branch and will not see any rebases or edits of
patches.
I'm doing this because of the large number of interrelated patches that
different people are working on right now. This makes it easier for
people to be able to base their work off of the latest interrelated
patches from other people. Once this backlog clears out, it might be
possible for me to drop the github repo. Right now it's the only way I
have to provide the sort of early access sandbox that people need to get
their patches in without taking too many consecutive release cycles.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
