From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: xen/tip.git and how it should function? Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:15:22 -0400 Message-ID: <20130731171522.GD14590@konrad-lan.dumpdata.com> References: <20130730175324.GA11003@phenom.dumpdata.com> <20130731141003.GC23258@phenom.dumpdata.com> <51F93731.6030100@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, David Vrabel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:22:57PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, David Vrabel wrote: > > On 31/07/13 16:48, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > >>>> With two maintainers, this should be easy enough - each maintainer can put his or her > > >>>> patches in their local tree (or some git tree). Create a 'stable/for-linus-3.12' and > > >>>> do a git merge on his or her local tree, and push said 'stable/for-linus-3.12' up > > >>>> to the tip tree. > > >>> > > >>> It might be worth giving an heads up to each others, at least before > > >>> pull requests to Linus. > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> The other thing is that we could name them differently. Say: > > >> > > >> stable/for-linus-3.12.generic (for drivers/xen) > > >> stable/for-linux-3.12.x86 (arch/x86/xen...) > > >> stable/for-linux-3.12.arm > > >> > > >> and then there are just three GIT PULLs during the merge window? > > >> > > > > > > I think it's best if we only have one pull request. Regardless of the > > > number of pull requests certainly we need only one linux-next branch. > > > Therefore if we go for tree branches, eventually they need to be merged > > > into a single tree anyway. The three branches strategy might work well > > > for internal coordination between us though: > > > > > > - we work independently on our own branches as usual > > > > > > - when we are ready we give an heads up to the others and we merge into > > > the single tree and linux-next (could the single tree be linux-next?) > > > > You're not supposed to base anything off linux-next. I can't see how it > > would work either. > > I meant linux-next as the name of the branch we are going to use for > linux-next. Not the linux-next tree. Right, as patches that are going to Linus are suppose to stew in linux-next. At least to sort out any other tree dependencies.