Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:07:28 +0100 (BST) | From | Julian Phillips <> | Subject | Re: GIT and the current -stable |
| |
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Brian Gernhardt (benji@silverinsanity.com) wrote: >> On Apr 14, 2007, at 4:34 AM, Chris Wright wrote: >>> I've already put a tree like this up on kernel.org. The master branch >>> is Linus' tree, and there's branches for each of the stable releases >>> called linux-2.6.[12-20].y (I didn't add 2.6.11.y). >>> >>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6-stable.git;a=summary >> >> Is HEAD for that repo the most recent stable branch, or (as gitweb >> makes it look) Linus's head. I'd expect a "-stable" repo to point at >> the most recent stable commit, not the most recent development >> commit. And I'd also expect gitweb's summary page to show the >> shortlog for HEAd. One of my assumptions are being broken and I >> don't like it. It leaves me all confused... > > As I mentioned. The master branch (HEAD) is Linus' tree, and each > stable tree is on its own branch. You'll find shortlog summarizes the > main branch, so yes, gitweb's summary is a bit confusing based on your > assumptions. This is a new tree and hasn't been publicized until now. > It does make sense to have its head be the newest stable, I'll switch > that around.
Would it not make more sense to point HEAD at the linux-2.6.20-y branch and either let master be Linus' tree or simply not have a master branch? Otherwise, what happens to master when the latest stable tree becomes linux-2.6.21-y?
-- Julian
--- Most people want either less corruption or more of a chance to participate in it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |