Re: Time for drm-ci-next?

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com> wrote:
> When we first merged drm/ci I was unsure if it would need it's own
> -next branch.  But after using it for a couple releases, a few times
> I've found myself wanting to backmerge drm/ci changes without
> necessarily backmerging all of drm-misc-next.
>
> So, maybe it makes some sense to have a drm-ci-next branch that
> driver-maintainers could back-merge as-needed?

That's a crossmerge instead of a backmerge, and I feel that could get
messy. What if folks crossmerge drm-ci-next but it gets rejected for
drm-next? Or the baselines are different, and the crossmerge pulls in
way more stuff than it should?

IMO the route should be drm-ci-next -> pull request to drm-next ->
backmerge drm-next to drivers and drm-misc-next.

I'm not opposed to having drm-ci-next at all, mainly indifferent, but I
question the merge flows. And then the question becomes, does my
suggested merge flow complicate your original goal?


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel