Helping with backports: linux-next, linux, linux-stable - a few enhancements

Helping with backports: linux-next, linux, linux-stable - a few enhancements

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

Greg, Stephen, Konstantin,

so for the Linux backports project [0] we rely on a few git trees:

  * linux-next.git
  * linux-stable.git
  * linux.git

The linux.git tree is required for RC releases. The linux-stable.git
tree for extraversion stable releases, and the linux-next.git tree for
daily snapshots. There is a trick for stable releases whereby we
accelerate the integration of pending-stable patches by cherry picking
them out of linux-next.git if the commit log entry has the
'stable@vger.kernel.org' on the commit log, and if the stable patch
does not apply we require the developers to provide a backport
compatible port. This trick works swell on linux-next.git for RC
release given that we can query for rc releases there as linux-next
carries them but linux-next.git does not carry extra version tags.
Additionally the requirement of linux.git is only there given that at
times there are delays between which linux-stable.git will not have an
RC release on it. I have a way to address all these issues, namely to
add linux.git as a remote for my local linux-stable tree, and also by
adding linux-stable as a local remote for my linux-next tree. Now, I
document how I resolve this for backport package consumers / builders
but it occurs to me perhaps we can simplify this if we had:

  * linux-next - pulling in linux-stable packs / tags
  * a new linux-releases.git - which has both linux.git and
linux-stable pulled together through a cronjob

Would this be reasonable to accommodate to help ease of use or shall
we just live with folks having to do the remote / local remote hacks?

[0] https://backports.wiki.kernel.org/

  LUis

Re: Helping with backports: linux-next, linux, linux-stable - a few enhancements

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 03:45:46PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Greg, Stephen, Konstantin,
> 
> so for the Linux backports project [0] we rely on a few git trees:
> 
>   * linux-next.git
>   * linux-stable.git
>   * linux.git
> 
> The linux.git tree is required for RC releases. The linux-stable.git
> tree for extraversion stable releases, and the linux-next.git tree for
> daily snapshots. There is a trick for stable releases whereby we
> accelerate the integration of pending-stable patches by cherry picking
> them out of linux-next.git if the commit log entry has the
> 'stable@vger.kernel.org' on the commit log, and if the stable patch
> does not apply we require the developers to provide a backport
> compatible port. This trick works swell on linux-next.git for RC
> release given that we can query for rc releases there as linux-next
> carries them but linux-next.git does not carry extra version tags.
> Additionally the requirement of linux.git is only there given that at
> times there are delays between which linux-stable.git will not have an
> RC release on it. I have a way to address all these issues, namely to
> add linux.git as a remote for my local linux-stable tree, and also by
> adding linux-stable as a local remote for my linux-next tree. Now, I
> document how I resolve this for backport package consumers / builders
> but it occurs to me perhaps we can simplify this if we had:
> 
>   * linux-next - pulling in linux-stable packs / tags
>   * a new linux-releases.git - which has both linux.git and
> linux-stable pulled together through a cronjob
> 
> Would this be reasonable to accommodate to help ease of use or shall
> we just live with folks having to do the remote / local remote hacks?

I pull the linux.git tree into linux-stable.git every few -rc releases,
and as it's based on linux.git, it's really not a big deal.

I don't see how pulling linux-stable into linux-next really helps anyone
out, linux-stable is so far behind what is in linux-next it's not funny.

But, if you really want it all in a single tree, can't you just do this
with a few 'remote' markings in your git configuration file for the repo
and do it locally if you want to?

Otherwise I don't see the real question here.

confused probably due to a bad case of jet lag,

greg k-h

Re: Helping with backports: linux-next, linux, linux-stable - a few enhancements

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 03:45:46PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> Greg, Stephen, Konstantin,
>>
>> so for the Linux backports project [0] we rely on a few git trees:
>>
>>   * linux-next.git
>>   * linux-stable.git
>>   * linux.git
>>
>> The linux.git tree is required for RC releases. The linux-stable.git
>> tree for extraversion stable releases, and the linux-next.git tree for
>> daily snapshots. There is a trick for stable releases whereby we
>> accelerate the integration of pending-stable patches by cherry picking
>> them out of linux-next.git if the commit log entry has the
>> 'stable@vger.kernel.org' on the commit log, and if the stable patch
>> does not apply we require the developers to provide a backport
>> compatible port. This trick works swell on linux-next.git for RC
>> release given that we can query for rc releases there as linux-next
>> carries them but linux-next.git does not carry extra version tags.
>> Additionally the requirement of linux.git is only there given that at
>> times there are delays between which linux-stable.git will not have an
>> RC release on it. I have a way to address all these issues, namely to
>> add linux.git as a remote for my local linux-stable tree, and also by
>> adding linux-stable as a local remote for my linux-next tree. Now, I
>> document how I resolve this for backport package consumers / builders
>> but it occurs to me perhaps we can simplify this if we had:
>>
>>   * linux-next - pulling in linux-stable packs / tags
>>   * a new linux-releases.git - which has both linux.git and
>> linux-stable pulled together through a cronjob
>>
>> Would this be reasonable to accommodate to help ease of use or shall
>> we just live with folks having to do the remote / local remote hacks?
>
> I pull the linux.git tree into linux-stable.git every few -rc releases,
> and as it's based on linux.git, it's really not a big deal.

Keyword: "few", which is fine for those who can / want to wait, in my
case I need them as they come.

> I don't see how pulling linux-stable into linux-next really helps anyone
> out, linux-stable is so far behind what is in linux-next it's not funny.

By pulling linux-stable into linux-next you get to be able to run
things like this from within linux-next:

git format-patch --grep="stable@vger.kernel.org" -o
$PENDING_STABLE_DIR v3.5.4.. $MY_FILES

That is, from v3.5.4 up to that day's linux-next tag.

Without linux-stable linux-next does not get the v3.5.4 tags to allow
me / users of compat-drivers to do this. We do this to accelerate the
incorporation of stable pending-stable patches into a release based on
a stable extraversion release.

> But, if you really want it all in a single tree, can't you just do this
> with a few 'remote' markings in your git configuration file for the repo
> and do it locally if you want to?
>
> Otherwise I don't see the real question here.

Right, absolutely! Using a remote arrangements fixes this completely
for me. I alone can live happy doing what I do but since I have users
depending on using compat-drivers to make their own set of releases
and test things it means I have to get folks using compat-drivers to
also set up the same git remotes arrangements. That's fine but I'm
looking to simplify it if I can for users.

> confused probably due to a bad case of jet lag,

No problem :) I obviously could just push my own tree to do this as
well but as for linux-next pulling linux-stable it seemed a trusty
cronjob would be more trustworthy than me pushing stuff regularly.
Likewise for linux-stable pulling more regularly linux.

  Luis

Re: Helping with backports: linux-next, linux, linux-stable - a few enhancements

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1776 bytes --]

Hi Luis,

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:24:44 -0700 "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't see how pulling linux-stable into linux-next really helps anyone
> > out, linux-stable is so far behind what is in linux-next it's not funny.
> 
> By pulling linux-stable into linux-next you get to be able to run
> things like this from within linux-next:
> 
> git format-patch --grep="stable@vger.kernel.org" -o
> $PENDING_STABLE_DIR v3.5.4.. $MY_FILES
> 
> That is, from v3.5.4 up to that day's linux-next tag.
> 
> Without linux-stable linux-next does not get the v3.5.4 tags to allow
> me / users of compat-drivers to do this. We do this to accelerate the
> incorporation of stable pending-stable patches into a release based on
> a stable extraversion release.

You need to have linux-stable as a remote in your tree then.
linux-stable and linux-next are independent tree and will never share any
commits that are not in Linus' tree as well.  I do not need more commits
and tags in my tree than I already have.

> Right, absolutely! Using a remote arrangements fixes this completely
> for me. I alone can live happy doing what I do but since I have users
> depending on using compat-drivers to make their own set of releases
> and test things it means I have to get folks using compat-drivers to
> also set up the same git remotes arrangements. That's fine but I'm
> looking to simplify it if I can for users.

If they fetch from your tree, and your tree has Linus' tree and
linux-next and linux-stable in it (and you have local tracking branches
for those trees, or they explicitly use --tags when they fetch) then they
will get all that from you.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]