Re: drivers/drm/i915 maintenance process

[Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>]

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 23:05:23 -0700
"Keith Packard" <keithp@keithp.com> wrote:

>  1) drm-intel-next
> 
>     This contains work destined for the 'next' release, it may include
>     new functionality and performance enhancements. It may also cause
>     regressions on some hardware. The tip of this tree will be sent
>     to Dave Airlie for inclusion in the kernel during the next
>     merge window. I've already sent all of what is on this branch
>     to him for 3.0
> 
>     This tree should be tested during the development process to try and
>     catch bugs and regressions before they are merged. The most critical
>     time for testing this is just *before* the release of the current RC
>     kernel version as that is when it should have most of the code
>     planned for the *next* release.
> 
>  2) drm-intel-fixes
> 
>     This contains bug fixes after the merge window has closed. I will
>     fast-forwarded to each RC when possible so that we test the fully
>     integrated kernel for regressions.
> 
>     This tree should be tested during the stabilization process after RC1
>     comes out as patches are applied.

Can you keep drm-intel-next fairly up to date with respect to the fixes
branch?  I.e. keep it a superset of drm-intel-fixes for the most part?

In PCI-land, this means re-basing my -next tree periodically before the
merge window opens (though not right before the merge window unless
something unexpected happens, like a patch needing to be dropped; in
that case I'll delay the merge window push a bit to allow for more
testing).

Downstream PCI developers requested this since it makes feature
development much easier (you get all the bug fixes destined for Linus
while working on a new feature for the next window), and as a
downstream gfx developer I'd like to see this on the Intel side as
well, unless other developers have big objections...

Thanks,
-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center