On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 03:19:59AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I'm a big fan of the for-next vs for-linux split for next release work
> vs bugfixes which we've not applied yet. The whole topic branches
> scheme makes sense for large changes like the crc work, but seems
> utterly confusing if applied to every little change, as now the amount
> of branches you can conflict againt multiplies. I'm defintively in
> favour of a model that has less active branches.
I certainly wouldn't want to create topic branches for every
standalone patch - that doesn't make any sense from a management
overhead point of view. I'd keep a "miscellaneous" topic branch
specifically for aggregating standalone and small fixes, and that
keeps the number of topic branches under control.
The way I see it from a developer POV is that after the topic branch
is created you can check that it matches your local changes, then
just ignore it. You continue to work from the for-next branch (which
now includes your work from the topic branch), or continue to target
the unchanging master branch or the for-next merge target branch,
which would be the same as what you work from now.
In the case that you have work that is dependent on a specific topic
branch, we can add the work to the end of that topic branch rather
than create a new one. Or if you have dependencies across
everything, then you develop against for-next and we simply make
that the last topic branch to be merged into for-next.
i.e. as a developer, you really don't need to care that much about
individual topic branches and how they are managed....