RISC-V for-next/fixes (cont'd from PW sync)

["Björn Töpel" <bjorn@kernel.org>]

Hi,

I figured I'd put some words on the "how to update the RISC-V
for-next/fixes branches [1]" that came up on the patchwork call today.

In RISC-V land, the for-next branch is used for features, and typically
sent as a couple of PRs to Linus when the merge window is open. The
fixes branch is sent as PR(s) between the RCs of a release.

Today, the baseline for for-next/fixes is the CURRENT_RELEASE-rc1, and
features/fixes are based on that.

This has IMO a couple of issues:

1. fixes is missing the non-RISC-V fixes from releases later than
   -rc1, which makes it harder for contributors.
2. for-next does not have the fixes from RISC-V/rest of the kernel,
   and it's hard for contributors to test the work on for-next (buggy,
   no fixes, and sometime missing deps).

I used to spend a whole lot of mine time in the netdev tree of the
kernel, and this is how they manage it (Thanks Kuba!):

Netdev (here exchanged to RISC-V trees), fast-forward fixes, and then
cross-merge fixes into for-next -- for every -rc.

E.g., say fixes is submitted for -rc2 to Linus, once he pulls, do:

  git push --delete origin $SOMETAG
  git tag -d $SOMETAG
  git pull --ff-only --tags git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
  build / test / push out.

Then pull fixes into for-next:

  git pull --tags git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux.git fixes


Personally (obviously biased), I think this would be easier for
contributors. Any downsides from a RISC-V perspective?


Björn


[1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux.git