Re: [GIT PULL] intel-gpio for 5.11-1

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 01:43:38PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:57 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > > And that patch was on my fixes branch, which went into v5.10-rc4,
> > > so in order to have the base commit in the devel tree I had to merge
> > > in v5.10-rc4.
> >
> > I based solely on your gpio/for-next as has been stated in the cover letter.
> > So, the PR might have been applied on top of your gpio/for-next without any
> > additional merge required.
> 
> OK but my for-next isn't what is going to be merged by Torvalds so there
> is some misunderstanding here.
> 
> In my tree "for-next" does not mean "for the next kernel that Torvalds
> is going to release", it means "for the linux-next integration tree".
> 
> What is going into v5.11 is "devel" and that is why I'm always talking
> about pulling stuff into devel etc.
> 
> for-next is created when I merged a few patches like this:
> 
> > git checkout for-next
> > git reset --hard fixes
> > git merge devel
> 
> (Procedure to create integration branch recommended by
> Stephen Rothwell at one point.)
> 
> This is why your pull request work fine anyways if I merge in -rc4
> because then "devel" will contain all commits from these two
> branches at that point.
> 
> > I admit that PR automatic text is a bit deviated (it has been taken from wrong
> > base, note that tag is correct nevertheless). I will look forward to amend my
> > scripts.
> 
> Don't worry about it.
> 
> Maybe I need to think about how I name stuff.
> 
> Should I rename the branch "for-next" to "for-sjr-next" and
> rename "devel" to "for-torvalds-next" then "fixes"
> into "for-torvalds-current" or something
> so it is crystal clear what they are for?
> 
> The community doesn't really have an established standard
> here.

Hmm... Usually for-next is what should come as material for next cycle.
And devel or so is for testing (can be rebased / etc)

I like the following schema (with possible variations in the parentheses):

 fixes (for-current) - what is going to the next rc of current cycle
 for-next - what is going to the next release cycle
 devel (review, ...) - what is under review / testing / etc

What you explained to me seems like swapped for-next and devel semantics and
this is confusing because the above schema is what I met in 99% of repositories
I'm cooking patches against.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko