From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com,
sandeen@redhat.com, bfoster@redhat.com, aalbersh@kernel.org,
axboe@kernel.dk
Subject: Re: Changes to XFS patch integration process
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 18:08:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250306170841.GA25819@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nausrxvwnnnk7g7ythgaslitvrfy5syeugvsjequ74zsd7gz2l@4bkgm5yrcjqh>
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:50:51AM +0100, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > If I had a for-6.14 and a for-6.15 branch, I'd base the PRs off of those
> > branches, not the for-next branch itself.
>
> I see what you mean, but from another POV, you'd be basing a PR on top of one
> series of patches, not on top of everything.
Well, while some subsystems have tons of topic branches that turns into
a mess really quickly. So what Darrick said makes the most sense in
general. There might be occasional corner cases where you'd want to
be more fine grained, but they should be very rare.
>
> Today, what we have, is a relatively stable for-next branch, where we just
> really rebase when something goes wrong, so, usually, when I push things into
> for-next, I've had it tested for a big while.
>
> Per my conversations off-list (specially with hch), is that this shouldn't be
> the purpose at all of for-next, but a testing branch where (almost anything) can
> go wrong, within reason of course. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
I would expect for-next to have some amount of sanity testing. But the
idea is indeed to have the code integrated with other kernel changes
rather sooner than later.
>
> At the same time, I wish we have a branch that everybody can work with, which
> contains 'everything' staged, ready to go, so I'd do all the merge between
> current and next release myself into such branch. I think having a branch ready
> for people to work with is a maintainer's job, and people shouldn't be bothered
> by trying to figure out which branch they should use to base their patches on
> top.
>
> I'm hoping to use the master's branch for that if nobody has any objection.
Using master is really confusing.
As I said earlier and Darrick also said the most usual thing is
to have one branch for $CURRELEASE fixes and one for $NEXTRELEASE
development work. for-next is then a temporary merge of those two.
If you need $CURRELEASE changes in $NEXTRELEASE to avoid a mess, you
either rebase $NEXTRELEASE (usually earlier in the merge window) or
pull the $CURRELEASE into $NEXTRELEASE with a well-documented
merge commit message documenting why it had to be done.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-06 17:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-03 10:42 Changes to XFS patch integration process Carlos Maiolino
2025-03-03 14:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-03 15:00 ` Carlos Maiolino
2025-03-03 15:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-04 20:20 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-03-06 7:50 ` Carlos Maiolino
2025-03-06 17:08 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2025-03-06 17:40 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-03-10 10:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250306170841.GA25819@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=aalbersh@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox