From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Carpenter Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 09:20:51 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: adjust to clang-version.sh removal Message-Id: <20210123092051.GT2696@kadam> List-Id: References: <20210121160115.4676-1-lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> <20210122123354.GR2696@kadam> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Sedat Dilek Cc: Lukas Bulwahn , Masahiro Yamada , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, Nick Desaulniers , Nathan Chancellor , Clang-Built-Linux ML , Joe Perches , Ralf Ramsauer , Pia Eichinger , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In networking then they want you to say which tree it applies to, but it's not as simple as saying "net" vs "net-next". If it's a bugfix then you should write that against "net" but if it's a clean up or a fix to a recent change then it should be written against "net-next". Also linux-next is not necessarily the same thing as net-next. Networking patches should be written against either net or net-next, not linux-next. BPF tried to implement similar rules to they're not big enough to impose their own rules. It's quite a big headache to try to figure out which tree to use if you're like me and have no clue about bpf. Anyway, the point of the net vs net-next is that devs are supposed to figure out the exact tree and they're supposed to only write net-next if it doesn't apply to net. It's not clear to me the value of putting linux-next in the subject. Doesn't everyone develop against the latest devel tree? Certainly I can't imagine any maintainers doing extra work to try figure out the date of the linux-next release. Surely, they just say "Doesn't apply to foo-tree. Resend if necessary." That's the fastest and easiest response when patches don't apply. regards, dan carpente