On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 07:59:47PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 28.08.2012 16:27, schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 02:55:56PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 28 August 2012 14:30, Eduardo Habkost <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> - 1.2 branching, or creation of a "cpu-next" tree where "good to be > >>> merged" patches can live until 1.2 is done; > >> > >> With 1.3 due for release in just over a week, it seems unlikely > >> that it's worth branching at this point... > > > > Well, the closer to the release, the smaller the cost of branching as we > > won't have many patches entering the 1.2 branch, anyway. > > The idea behind the new release model is to never branch for releases, > so that we can easily bisect between v1.2 and v1.3, both tags being on > the same branch. So I don't think a 1.2 branch is likely.
That means that every branch to be merged after 1.2 has to be rebased on top of 1.2 before being merged? -- Eduardo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
