From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 665F3C54E58 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:28:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931D211207C; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:28:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: gabe.freedesktop.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="ZT6mpraC"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.11]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A48F011207C for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:28:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1710494901; x=1742030901; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=MGYNWlWsopnRvwXHYNUgynG6Nap5bDj2+hfijJqWPm4=; b=ZT6mpraCy3B/bwJ1FD78j6YuUIbuCchiFqp6jgDCjMCJPCnwZO89smDN eBFzWfR2J8z0MoY3NAXPmnJduM5WLrsZh8FsgoPIVf1gdpDJoNIIk3aUf w9kyBikRCXM9/cJ8hRr4d4a1qZOqXnwBxfu/vqBzrcMGeKxK7mODU9hQW tQ0hRyBntalJfu/Pvlhn9BQb4fZ+PnGdcgp5yaNAO2mRR4fhmEt5a/iEw HXlLK4ntPowACqBjrHIUPqUPjioAOXdarzKPU8W9Fmgej6H911DYWTgGP 6uinrADgRs++MFU+EDQXngdr7esJozGHI7D6B8F+fpdasAnIM2UWP+Gb8 w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11013"; a="15999577" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,128,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="15999577" Received: from fmviesa007.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.147]) by fmvoesa105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Mar 2024 02:28:16 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,128,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="12530343" Received: from denache-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.252.36.82]) by fmviesa007-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Mar 2024 02:28:14 -0700 From: Jani Nikula To: Rob Clark , Helen Koike , Vignesh Raman , Dave Airlie , Daniel Vetter Cc: dri-devel Subject: Re: Time for drm-ci-next? In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:28:09 +0200 Message-ID: <87a5mzrgie.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Direct Rendering Infrastructure - Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Rob Clark 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