Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: name the wufan/ipe next branch

[Fan Wu <wufan@kernel.org>]

On 9/25/2026 10:52 PM, Matthias Goergens wrote:
> The T: entry for INTEGRITY POLICY ENFORCEMENT (IPE) names wufan/ipe
> without a branch.  The repository's HEAD points to branch master, which
> mainline already contains.  linux-next merges the next branch of this
> repository (Next/Trees).  Name that branch in the entry.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Goergens <matthias.goergens@gmail.com>
> ---
> This is part of a cleanup of all T: entries whose repository HEAD is
> not where development happens: one patch per repository, sent in small
> batches.  The plan is at [1], and why it goes out in batches at [2].
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260924033200.3615554-1-matthias.goergens@gmail.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260924101844.2403008-1-matthias.goergens@gmail.com/
> 
>  MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 140eafcbbd78..fc42b68e0718 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -12960,7 +12960,7 @@ INTEGRITY POLICY ENFORCEMENT (IPE)
>  M:	Fan Wu <wufan@kernel.org>
>  L:	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
>  S:	Supported
> -T:	git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wufan/ipe.git
> +T:	git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wufan/ipe.git next
>  F:	Documentation/admin-guide/LSM/ipe.rst
>  F:	Documentation/security/ipe.rst
>  F:	scripts/ipe/
> 
> base-commit: 62f4c998b297cf233997a2b4cd6fc2d2df0319c9

Hi Matthias,

From the related discussion, this looks intended to stop Sashiko from
picking a stale tree as its baseline.

For IPE, I only update next when there are patches queued, so it can
remain unchanged for several releases. Contributors should normally
base their work on Linus' master rather than next. Naming next here
could therefore lead to the same stale-baseline problem.

I also looked at your Sashiko PR. When the default HEAD is a strict
ancestor of Linus' master, would Sashiko use Linus' master instead?
If so, that's the behavior we want for IPE, and there would be no
need to add next here.

Fan