Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754440Ab1FFXul (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 19:50:41 -0400 Received: from oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.38.55]:42892 "HELO oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751574Ab1FFXuk (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2011 19:50:40 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 399 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 06 Jun 2011 19:50:40 EDT DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=SCz5PQ3HhA+NGESW+QOKT56zQru2lbLF9OpFy6yb4YllxDvsJw04q4PqFiqQow1Iz09536dlBg7UiEpvA1uc2w5RgKDDUDSkMBpkeoS0DbSckxCHwpCzpvqJ2I6UR4LI; Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:43:35 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes To: Keith Packard Cc: "drivers, Intel" , linux-kernel , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] drivers/drm/i915 maintenance process Message-ID: <20110606164335.10bdea9d@jbarnes-desktop> In-Reply-To: <20110606163025.5b1bfdee@jbarnes-desktop> References: <20110606133618.478fc5d9@jbarnes-desktop> <20110606163025.5b1bfdee@jbarnes-desktop> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.22.0; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 67.161.37.189 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1357 Lines: 32 On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:30:25 -0700 Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 16:24:46 -0700 > Keith Packard wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:36:18 -0700, Jesse Barnes 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/