From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: iproute2 net-next Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:58:23 +0100 Message-ID: <20171229085823.GA2000@nanopsycho> References: <20171225104919.2568e975@xeon-e3> <20171226044743.GK2942@mtr-leonro.local> <20171225221426.57d4af0b@xeon-e3> <20171226093547.GC10734@mtr-leonro.local> <5f75c535-e4a0-1cfa-d4b0-c3c60d50a1c6@iogearbox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Leon Romanovsky , Stephen Hemminger , netdev@vger.kernel.org, dsa@cumulusnetworks.com To: Daniel Borkmann Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f170.google.com ([209.85.128.170]:36349 "EHLO mail-wr0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752430AbdL2I6Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Dec 2017 03:58:25 -0500 Received: by mail-wr0-f170.google.com with SMTP id u19so34781784wrc.3 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:58:25 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5f75c535-e4a0-1cfa-d4b0-c3c60d50a1c6@iogearbox.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:46:31AM CET, daniel@iogearbox.net wrote: >On 12/26/2017 10:35 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:14:26PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>> On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:47:43 +0200 >>> Leon Romanovsky wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:49:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>>>> David Ahern has agreed to take over managing the net-next branch of iproute2. >>>>> The new location is: >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dsahern/iproute2-next.git/ >>>>> >>>>> In the past, I have accepted new features into iproute2 master branch, but >>>>> am changing the policy so that outside of the merge window (up until -rc1) >>>>> new features will get put into net-next to get some more review and testing >>>>> time. This means that things like the proposed batch streaming mode will >>>>> go through net-next. >>>> >>>> Did you consider to create one shared repo for the iproute2 to allow >>>> multiple committers workflow? >>> >>> For now having separate trees is best, there is no need for multiple >>> committers the load is very light. >>> >>>> It will be much convenient for the users to have one place for >>>> master/stable/net-next branches, instead of actually following two >>>> different repositories. >>> >>> If you are doing network development, you already need to deal with >>> multiple repo's on the kernel side so there is no difference. >> >> I agree with you that one extra "git remote add .." is not so huge and >> all people who develop for the netdev will do it. My concern is about >> Documentation and newcomers, who will have a hard time to find a right >> tree. > >I guess it would certainly help to identify the official repo to rebase >against much quicker if it would be under a common group on korg e.g. > > * iproute2/iproute2.git - for current cycle > * iproute2/iproute2-next.git - for net-next bits > >and also be in line with other tooling (ethtool and others), even if >not as high volume, but it would make it unambiguous right away from >the other, private iproute2 repos on korg, imho. Just a thought. +1 I was about to suggest this. This is nice opportunity to do such change. > >>>> Example, of such shared repo: >>>> BPF: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/ >>>> Bluetooth: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bluetooth/bluetooth-next.git/ >>>> RDMA: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rdma/rdma.git/ >>> >>> Most of these are high volume or vendor silo'd which is not the case here. >Cheers, >Daniel