Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:20:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20080212.182012.153642549.davem@davemloft.net>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, bfields@fieldses.org, jeff@garzik.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linville@tuxdriver.com
Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20080212180613.a1a07264.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20080212.173817.111913348.davem@davemloft.net>
	<alpine.LFD.1.00.0802121743400.2920@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	<20080212180613.a1a07264.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 796
Lines: 18

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:06:13 -0800

> So perhaps a better workflow would be keep the linux-next trees all
> messy, and then each developer can consolidate, rebase, join and
> drop things prior to sending their individual trees to Linus.

We could do that, but I believe Linus's main point is that if we go
and change the trees then in the end we're merging in something
different than what was actually tested, namely all the original trees
as merged into linux-next.

And I kind of agree with that.
--
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/