Hi Doug, On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:53:34 -0500 Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Jason and I would like you to make another change if you could. Well, > two actually. First, we've found that now that we are both pushing to > the same tree, the use of a tag instead of a branch for your for-next > testing is dangerous. In particular, kernel git repos have a fast- > forward requirement on all branches, so an attempted push to a branch > that has stale data from the pusher (say I just managed to push to the > branch a few minutes before Jason and Jason hasn't pulled my changes > into his branch before he decides to push his) is denied by the post > hooks. But no such check is in place for tags, and indeed we are > allowed to wipe out tags at will. This has already been an accident > once, and there is no sense letting it be one again, so we've changed > our workflows to compensate for this fact, and with that change, the > for-next tag will no longer be kept up to date, it will only be pushed > when we are sending a pull request, and that's too late for testing. > From now on, the for-next branch is the canonical source going forward > for testing purposes prior to a pull request. > > The second thing is we would like you to also add our for-rc branch. > Most of the time this will be a no-op, but we think there is some value > in making sure that -rc patches aren't going to cause future merge > problems with the for-next branch. > > Let me know if we can do those two things. Thanks! Both done. The new branch in linux-next is called rdma-fixes. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
