* iproute2 net-next
@ 2017-12-25 18:49 Stephen Hemminger
2017-12-26 4:47 ` Leon Romanovsky
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2017-12-25 18:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 534 bytes --]
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.
Thanks
Stephen Hemminger
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: iproute2 net-next
2017-12-25 18:49 iproute2 net-next Stephen Hemminger
@ 2017-12-26 4:47 ` Leon Romanovsky
2017-12-26 6:14 ` Stephen Hemminger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Leon Romanovsky @ 2017-12-26 4:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: netdev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1151 bytes --]
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.
>
Hi Stephen,
Did you consider to create one shared repo for the iproute2 to allow
multiple committers workflow?
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.
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/
Thanks
> Thanks
> Stephen Hemminger
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: iproute2 net-next
2017-12-26 4:47 ` Leon Romanovsky
@ 2017-12-26 6:14 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-12-26 9:35 ` Leon Romanovsky
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2017-12-26 6:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leon Romanovsky; +Cc: netdev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1591 bytes --]
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:47:43 +0200
Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> 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.
> >
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: iproute2 net-next
2017-12-26 6:14 ` Stephen Hemminger
@ 2017-12-26 9:35 ` Leon Romanovsky
2017-12-28 23:46 ` Daniel Borkmann
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Leon Romanovsky @ 2017-12-26 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: netdev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1914 bytes --]
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:14:26PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:47:43 +0200
> Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> 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.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > 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.
Thanks
>
> >
> > 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.
>
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: iproute2 net-next
2017-12-26 9:35 ` Leon Romanovsky
@ 2017-12-28 23:46 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-29 8:58 ` Jiri Pirko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2017-12-28 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Leon Romanovsky; +Cc: Stephen Hemminger, netdev, dsa
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 <leon@kernel.org> 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.
>>> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: iproute2 net-next
2017-12-28 23:46 ` Daniel Borkmann
@ 2017-12-29 8:58 ` Jiri Pirko
2017-12-30 4:00 ` Stephen Hemminger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Jiri Pirko @ 2017-12-29 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Borkmann; +Cc: Leon Romanovsky, Stephen Hemminger, netdev, dsa
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 <leon@kernel.org> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: iproute2 net-next
2017-12-29 8:58 ` Jiri Pirko
@ 2017-12-30 4:00 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-12-30 20:24 ` Daniel Borkmann
2018-01-16 1:56 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2017-12-30 4:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Pirko; +Cc: Daniel Borkmann, Leon Romanovsky, netdev, dsa
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:58:23 +0100
Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
> 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 <leon@kernel.org> 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
Good news
kup does support links so could make links from personal to iproute2 directory
Bad news
kup won't allow me to make iproute2 directory right now. Will have to wait for
Konstantin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: iproute2 net-next
2017-12-30 4:00 ` Stephen Hemminger
@ 2017-12-30 20:24 ` Daniel Borkmann
2018-01-16 1:56 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Borkmann @ 2017-12-30 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Hemminger, Jiri Pirko; +Cc: Leon Romanovsky, netdev, dsa
On 12/30/2017 05:00 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:58:23 +0100
> Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>> 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 <leon@kernel.org> 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
>
> Good news
> kup does support links so could make links from personal to iproute2 directory
That's nice indeed!
> Bad news
> kup won't allow me to make iproute2 directory right now. Will have to wait for
> Konstantin
Right, he also did set up the shared dir for bpf which was straight forward
though, so would be pretty much the same one-time procedure for iproute2.
Thanks,
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: iproute2 net-next
2017-12-30 4:00 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-12-30 20:24 ` Daniel Borkmann
@ 2018-01-16 1:56 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-01-16 2:59 ` David Ahern
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner @ 2018-01-16 1:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Hemminger
Cc: Jiri Pirko, Daniel Borkmann, Leon Romanovsky, netdev, dsa
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 08:00:28PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:58:23 +0100
> Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>
> > 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 <leon@kernel.org> 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
>
> Good news
> kup does support links so could make links from personal to iproute2 directory
>
> Bad news
> kup won't allow me to make iproute2 directory right now. Will have to wait for
> Konstantin
>
Hi, any news on this? Not sure if Konstantin is back already or not.
Thanks,
Marcelo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: iproute2 net-next
2018-01-16 1:56 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
@ 2018-01-16 2:59 ` David Ahern
2018-01-16 3:29 ` Jakub Kicinski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Ahern @ 2018-01-16 2:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner, Stephen Hemminger
Cc: Jiri Pirko, Daniel Borkmann, Leon Romanovsky, netdev
On 1/15/18 6:56 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 08:00:28PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:58:23 +0100
>> Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <leon@kernel.org> 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
>>
>> Good news
>> kup does support links so could make links from personal to iproute2 directory
>>
>> Bad news
>> kup won't allow me to make iproute2 directory right now. Will have to wait for
>> Konstantin
>>
>
> Hi, any news on this? Not sure if Konstantin is back already or not.
Done a few days ago. The new canonical URLs for those repos are:
pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2
pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next
So clone URLs
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next.git
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next.git
and
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: iproute2 net-next
2018-01-16 2:59 ` David Ahern
@ 2018-01-16 3:29 ` Jakub Kicinski
2018-01-16 19:06 ` David Ahern
2018-01-22 16:07 ` David Ahern
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Kicinski @ 2018-01-16 3:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Ahern
Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner, Stephen Hemminger, Jiri Pirko,
Daniel Borkmann, Leon Romanovsky, netdev
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:59:05 -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 1/15/18 6:56 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 08:00:28PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:58:23 +0100
> >> Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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 <leon@kernel.org> 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
> >>
> >> Good news
> >> kup does support links so could make links from personal to iproute2 directory
> >>
> >> Bad news
> >> kup won't allow me to make iproute2 directory right now. Will have to wait for
> >> Konstantin
> >>
> >
> > Hi, any news on this? Not sure if Konstantin is back already or not.
>
> Done a few days ago. The new canonical URLs for those repos are:
> pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2
> pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next
>
> So clone URLs
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next.git
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next.git
> and
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git
About the branches - what should we base our patches on for net-next?
Most -next repos just use the master, but it seems that in case of
iproute2-next.git the net-next branch is still active, and there is
an inactive net-next branch in iproute2.git.. Is this transitional or
will it stay this way?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: iproute2 net-next
2018-01-16 3:29 ` Jakub Kicinski
@ 2018-01-16 19:06 ` David Ahern
2018-01-22 16:07 ` David Ahern
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Ahern @ 2018-01-16 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Kicinski
Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner, Stephen Hemminger, Jiri Pirko,
Daniel Borkmann, Leon Romanovsky, netdev
On 1/15/18 7:29 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> Done a few days ago. The new canonical URLs for those repos are:
>> pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2
>> pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next
>>
>> So clone URLs
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next.git
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next.git
>> and
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git
> About the branches - what should we base our patches on for net-next?
> Most -next repos just use the master, but it seems that in case of
> iproute2-next.git the net-next branch is still active, and there is
> an inactive net-next branch in iproute2.git.. Is this transitional or
> will it stay this way?
good point. I'll make the current net-next branch in iproute2-next to
master.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: iproute2 net-next
2018-01-16 3:29 ` Jakub Kicinski
2018-01-16 19:06 ` David Ahern
@ 2018-01-22 16:07 ` David Ahern
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Ahern @ 2018-01-22 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Kicinski
Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner, Stephen Hemminger, Jiri Pirko,
Daniel Borkmann, Leon Romanovsky, netdev
On 1/15/18 8:29 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> About the branches - what should we base our patches on for net-next?
> Most -next repos just use the master, but it seems that in case of
> iproute2-next.git the net-next branch is still active, and there is
> an inactive net-next branch in iproute2.git.. Is this transitional or
> will it stay this way?
The master branch for iproute2-next tree has been updated to be the
branch for -next patches and the net-next branch has been deleted.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-01-22 16:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-12-25 18:49 iproute2 net-next Stephen Hemminger
2017-12-26 4:47 ` Leon Romanovsky
2017-12-26 6:14 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-12-26 9:35 ` Leon Romanovsky
2017-12-28 23:46 ` Daniel Borkmann
2017-12-29 8:58 ` Jiri Pirko
2017-12-30 4:00 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-12-30 20:24 ` Daniel Borkmann
2018-01-16 1:56 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2018-01-16 2:59 ` David Ahern
2018-01-16 3:29 ` Jakub Kicinski
2018-01-16 19:06 ` David Ahern
2018-01-22 16:07 ` David Ahern
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).