On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 09:24:58AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 07/19/2017 11:38 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:55:23PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > FWIW, people building from the git tree are probably using the > > master branch (v4.11.0), not the for-next branch. I used to stage > > all the -rcX releases in the master branch, which was why I was > > confused by this at first. Never mind, I'll update my scripts that > > haven't been pulling the xfsprogs for-next branch from kernel.org... > > yeah, I was doing that when I was new to the maintainer game, for-next > was rebasable and more forgiving. Maybe I should change that back. Yeah, for-next is more forgiving, but if you are tagging stuff for releases (even -rc) then it probably should have been merged back into the master branch and then tagged. I've always worked under the assumption that -rc releases are "stable" release points because you are asking the wider public to use and test the release.... i.e. If stuff needs to be undone after a -rc release then we should use reverts that explain why something was undone - rebasing the entire dev branch to remove the problem from recorded history means we can't easily find out why that thing caused problems years down the track. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
