On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:39:42AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > Greg: > > In your USB repository you keep two main branches: usb-linus and > usb-next. As I understand it, patches that contain new development get > added to usb-next (which doesn't get pushed to Linus until the next > merge window), whereas patches fixing bugs in the upcoming release get > added to usb-linus (which gets pushed to Linus every week or so). That is correct. > Doesn't it make more sense to add bug-fix patches to both branches? > Not doing this increases the likelihood of conflicts, because new > development could well need to touch code that just had some sort of > fix applied. That's true, if you think a specific patch should be applied to both, I'll be glad to do so. Generally when I test, I test with a merge of both trees together, as that's the true end-result for what linux-next is showing, and what the next release really will have in it. Almost always there is not any conflicts, with a few minor exceptions. For example, for the 3.2 merge window, there were no conflicts, only my tty tree had a conflict, as did my staging tree, but both of them were trivial to resolve, infact, linux-next warned me about them before I even realized they were there. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
