Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Documentation/process: Add a maintainer handbook for KVM x86

Oliver Upton
2023-03-13T17:38:56Z

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 05:32:29PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 09:25:54AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 09:37:45AM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 05:03:36PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > > +As a general guideline, use ``kvm-x86/next`` even if a patch/series touches
> > > > > +multiple architectures, i.e. isn't strictly scoped to x86. Using any of the
> > > > > +branches from the main KVM tree is usually a less good option as they likely
> > > > > +won't have many, if any, changes for the next release, i.e. using the main KVM
> > > > > +tree as a base is more likely to yield conflicts. And if there are non-trivial
> > > > > +conflicts with multiple architectures, coordination between maintainers will be
> > > > > +required no matter what base is used. Note, this is far from a hard rule, i.e.
> > > > > +use a different base for multi-arch series if that makes the most sense.
> > >
> > > I don't think this is the best way to coordinate with other architectures.
> > > Regardless of whether you intended this to be prescriptive, I'm worried most
> > > folks will follow along and just base patches on kvm-x86/next anyway.
> >
> > Probably, but for the target audience (KVM x86 contributors), that's likely the
> > least awful base 99% of the time.
>
> Sorry, I follow this reasoning at all.

I *don't* follow ...

--
Thanks,
Oliver