Re: linux-next: Requirements and process

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Sat, 3 May 2008 17:45:57 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> On Fri, 2 May 2008 23:35:19 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 3 May 2008 15:45:42 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > 
> > > The following architectures are not in linux-next (and should be):
> > > 
> > > alpha		cris		frv
> > > h8300		m32r		m68knommu
> > > mips		mn10300		parisc
> > > um		v850		xtensa
> > 
> > mips, m32r, parisc and xtensa do have git trees.  The rest are mastered as
> > discrete patches in -mm.
> 
> So, I was wondering if it would be worth while having subsections to a
> series file like:
> 
> # NEXT_PATCHES_START [<label> [<base>]]
> 
> # NEXT_PATCHES_END
> 
> With <label> sections being logically separate enough that we can talk
> about them/drop them/merge them at different places etc.
> 
> Or am I over engineering? :-)

That sounds good.  I once started to think about how to do this but
accidentally fell asleep.  I was thinking along the lines of the above,
only it drives an akpm script which spits out separate quilt (or git) trees
for linux-next.

The problem is that I then need to "drop" the patches so that I can merge
linux-next.  That's where I fell asleep.  I suppose that putting the
well-baked ones into a git tree and mastering them there solves the
problem.  But juggling 100-odd git branches on top of everything else
doesn't sound fun.

I need to think about this some more - it'll come.

What does "[<base>]" do?