On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 03:19:59AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I'm a big fan of the for-next vs for-linux split for next release work > vs bugfixes which we've not applied yet. The whole topic branches > scheme makes sense for large changes like the crc work, but seems > utterly confusing if applied to every little change, as now the amount > of branches you can conflict againt multiplies. I'm defintively in > favour of a model that has less active branches. I certainly wouldn't want to create topic branches for every standalone patch - that doesn't make any sense from a management overhead point of view. I'd keep a "miscellaneous" topic branch specifically for aggregating standalone and small fixes, and that keeps the number of topic branches under control. The way I see it from a developer POV is that after the topic branch is created you can check that it matches your local changes, then just ignore it. You continue to work from the for-next branch (which now includes your work from the topic branch), or continue to target the unchanging master branch or the for-next merge target branch, which would be the same as what you work from now. In the case that you have work that is dependent on a specific topic branch, we can add the work to the end of that topic branch rather than create a new one. Or if you have dependencies across everything, then you develop against for-next and we simply make that the last topic branch to be merged into for-next. i.e. as a developer, you really don't need to care that much about individual topic branches and how they are managed.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
