Re: GIT and the current -stable

[Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk>]

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/