Re: git-tree, NOW!

[Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3176 bytes --]

On 12/01/2011 11:49 AM, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
>>> Yes. So far we just tried to signal "patch is now ready" by adding our
>>> "acked-by"... which does not work for a series of patches, espcially if
>>> it touches other sub-systems as well (powerpc, devicetree).
>>
>> Yes - but David sometimes merges patches if they are not reviewed. Like
>> the pch-can driver, where I missed to reply to net-dev.

> IMO if someone begins to post a new CAN driver on netdev we should pull him to
> linux-can for further discussion & review. Indeed the PCH driver mainlining

+1

> was painful and IIRC it could still be merged to an other driver.

Yep, but that's a different story :)

[...]

>>>>> That's also what Dave asks for. Apart from the tree he asks for someone
>>>>> who acts as the one and only interface to him.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, technically that could/should be the git tree, in persona Wolfgang
>>>> or/and (as Dave asked for one person) Oliver.
>>>
>>> Oliver?
>>
>> +1

> Well - i'm pretty happy that we splitted up the responsibilities some time ago
> and i'm currently only maintaining net/can. I'm working on this basically in
> my spare time and putting my eyes on all driver details too exceeds the WAF ;-)

No need to look at the driver stuff.... (continuation below)

> Regarding net/can there's not much traffic & change. So it would be ok for me
> to stay on the current process on netdev-ML.

>>>>>> I've setup a git repo on gitorious:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://gitorious.org/linux-can/linux-can
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's based on net-next, and currently David's net-next/master is pushing
>>>>>> there. It probably takes some time, the box pushing has just 4 mbit/s
>>>>>> upstream.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comments?
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from net-next, we may also need the net tree (as branch?).
>>>>
>>>> During merge windows David merges into his net-next tree, anyway I can
>>>> setup linux-can and linux-can-next, based on the linux-net and
>>>> linux-net-next trees.
>>>
>>> Do we need two trees? I thinks you can save a lot of bandwith (and disk
>>> space) by using just one tree and two branches.
> 
> 
> As the net tree only get's fixes i wonder why we should clone that tree?
> Working directly on Dave's net-tree for fixes looks straight forward to me.

Thinking about it - yes, what about just keeping linux-can-next.

> But the idea for a linux-can-next is great.
> 
> This would settle the process that we discuss new drivers & changes on
> linux-can ML and finally commit the stuff in linux-can-next, where one of us
> can send a pull request to Dave.

...you send the pull request.

> So everything beyond fixes would go this way then.

+1

So we communicate to davem that we now have a git tree, and Oliver is
the one that send the pull requests. Let's ask him if he wants to see
the patches in the pull request.

Marc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]