Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: name the kvmarm/kvmarm next branch

[Matthias Goergens <matthias.goergens@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 07:59:21 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> But that's not reflecting the way we deal with this tree. No actual
> development happens on that branch, as it is solely for integration.
> [...]
> Again, this is not how we work. We explicitly discourage patches
> against -next. The only sane reference to base kvmarm patches on is a
> published upstream tag from Linus' tree.

Thanks for taking the time to explain; I'll drop this one and try to
leave out other integration-only trees.  The rest will say only which
branch linux-next merges, not that patches should be based on it.

It does leave a question I'd like your view on.  submitting-patches.rst
tells contributors to find the tree to base their work on through the
T: entry, and for KVM/arm64 that leads to a HEAD from 2020, while the
rule you describe isn't written down anywhere MAINTAINERS points to
(the entry has no P: profile).  Would it help if the MAINTAINERS header
said that T: names where a subsystem's tree lives, and that the base
for patches can differ and belongs in the P: profile?  I'm preparing
patches documenting T: anyway, so I could fold that in.

Thanks,
Matthias