From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8FB7606A326 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 12:46:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=iirwKghM Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 612F710E1D4; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 12:46:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tor.source.kernel.org (tor.source.kernel.org [172.105.4.254]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2310A10E1D4 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 12:46:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 138D7612D8; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 12:46:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 86BEE1F000C1; Wed, 4 Nov 2026 12:46:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1793796364; bh=PFEBhpVkx/Db8FKRqQ1f85p8DYST/pInzrhzPSOP1ko=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=iirwKghMMMh85yOn9eMgrtze/QVFlkbamubxCg5KXK9uIiE1xxZkFy3spIr9QXM00 me/JMZv1X13+X32IwTbGLy0yRlrLX2QZ6uTUB4aIpHpiAf8e4QAjKi/7eZSHXH8AqP kjBT4yuLGNXCODj1eVe+1wAZqYYQz7qExZfH+SEyjf+8umNgHoh1s/jdGeil4W9p9T Q5AueLgnrVkMw0bqofKC/zJ9+oxC5JncAqIr3Q9Sy0lmUQy2KNSM/s1ca83C36OpZq Jxs/ryagZN9leSZ5n7M/mX0dR0jrHdHigb+cJWn7zBm91YQjiPMl+XrxV4OCVIbsTW IvgWW2yoYnUtg== Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2026 07:46:03 -0500 From: Sasha Levin To: Thorsten Leemhuis Cc: Rodrigo Vivi , Dave Airlie , Simona Vetter , Maarten Lankhorst , Maxime Ripard , Thomas Zimmermann , Jani Nikula , Joonas Lahtinen , Tvrtko Ursulin , Matthew Brost , Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hellstr=F6m?= , Danilo Krummrich , Alice Ryhl , Alex Deucher , Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6nig?= , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Mark Brown , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Linux kernel regressions list Subject: Re: [RFC] linux-next: replace the DRM trees with a single drm-for-linux-next Message-ID: References: X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Direct Rendering Infrastructure - Development List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "dri-devel" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on aws-us-west-2-korg-listserv-alma10-1 On Wed, Nov 04, 2026 at 06:49:29AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >On 11/2/26 19:41, Rodrigo Vivi wrote: >> >> We'd like to replace most of the DRM trees in linux-next with a single >> branch: >> >> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/tip.git#drm-for-linux-next >> >> It replaces these entries: >> >> drm/drm-next, drm/drm-fixes >> drm-misc/for-linux-next, drm-misc/for-linux-next-fixes >> drm-intel/for-linux-next, drm-intel/for-linux-next-fixes >> drm-xe/drm-xe-next >> drm-rust/for-linux-next, drm-rust/for-linux-next-fixes >> amdgpu (agd5f/linux.git#drm-next) >> >> drm-exynos, drm-msm, drm-msm-fixes, drm-msm-lumag, drm-nova and etnaviv >> are not part of it and stay as they are. >> >> The main reason is to reduce the conflict pain that Mark constantly faces. >> All of them should be handled already when we are rebuilding drm-tip.> [...] > >Please correct me if I'm wrong: this seems to mix up patches for the >current cycle (e.g., -fixes branches) with those for the next one -- so >I assume the former won't end up in next/pending-fixes anymore? > >Do we care? Or is this a situation along the lines of "yeah, that's a >downside of this, but given the upsides, we do this nevertheless"? > >For my work it was kind of nice to have the two tracks separated, as it >allowed me to easily check "is this fix for a recent regression in >pending-fixes, as it should, because it should be fixed this cycle". > >Side note: two years ago there was also the idea to increase testing of >pending-fixes or branches feeding into it separately, but it afaics got >no real traction: > >linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull requests >https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZyI-Y00J3DBUkon3@sashalap/ This is actually still happening today, just evolved a bit! I have a tree similar to linux-next, but it's fully automated, using LLMs for conflict resolutions, and generated a few times a day: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sashal/linux-next.git/ Instead of just a single tree, it builds the tree with categories, grouping them into "%s-next" trees for easier testing by subsystem or theme, and later merges them all into the one big "all-next" branch. The equivalent of the auto-pending-fixes branch you mentioned would be the "fixes-next" branch, and for the drm folks it would be the "drm-next" branch. This whole thing is still being very much used today, finding real problems :) -- Thanks, Sasha