Re: [Intel-gfx] drivers/drm/i915 maintenance process

[Jesse Barnes]

On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:30:25 -0700
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:24:46 -0700
> Keith Packard <keithp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:36:18 -0700, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Can you keep drm-intel-next fairly up to date with respect to the fixes
> > > branch?  I.e. keep it a superset of drm-intel-fixes for the most part?
> > 
> > Yes, I wanted to do that now, but -fixes is not a fast-forward from
> > -next and I thought I shouldn't be doing rebases.
> 
> You shouldn't if your downstream is using git trees and you're pulling
> from them, but it depends on your downstream.  In my particular case,
> I'm ok with rebases if it means I get fixes. :)

Oh and the other big reason is testing.  rebase generally voids
previous testing since you have new bits, so Linus really hates to see
a rebase just before a pull request, and I think Dave does too.

But rebasing for good reason (e.g. to make your -next branch a superset
of your -fixes branch) on occasion is fine.

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/