Re: GIT and the current -stable

From: Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk>
Date: Apr 14, 2007, 19:07 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704141917320.6461@beast.quantumfyre.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20070414171908.GU10574@sequoia.sous-sol.org>

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, Chris Wright wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> * 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.