From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E17F518E28; Sun, 7 Jul 2024 16:16:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720368973; cv=none; b=Cxz7rLDyyxB4maVWENibWvYMQd/pSWMvj1UnJMpX03gSyf4ospQORdQclNfvT3bAFESntZCyDJ7xIlSefq4IHITOtYDcrFq1Aj2EQTZGVG6AAsS237+AG6jUavhsxNmO0LGEBEG+HdKbV0/qKzCzfLDT6T+fphDEVHxVrrhCtrw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720368973; c=relaxed/simple; bh=aA7uaVzlUG8Es5n7DDdXmzvi98lEyCK+vZrQB5OXVLk=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Xv2DXwDU0fuXTd4FBCznu4KNMOkl1Ai8lHXAJF4OXBs+c+nBB7B2EfvCc0Ldx++akaNx04BIIBcXX3wyAd/LjTmRFzyPY5fWblQ0mCw726/qZ8ORbUcIaILd09ahtKvXVyQFEZe3F5e/WCi/ZMuFJbLL3l7itHUFfbMW5jxB59c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=GknRDJL2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="GknRDJL2" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 037FFC3277B; Sun, 7 Jul 2024 16:16:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1720368972; bh=aA7uaVzlUG8Es5n7DDdXmzvi98lEyCK+vZrQB5OXVLk=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=GknRDJL2+hHKP7Ic5uIA6BP906pcdNzabg7xdEV60em1p2IFkDYi/MyJ9anDshecm +zWMUjIdrCBSAcRRH9P8Ynam8dfbvPCT6mUNuV0g0K23eg1SQV8HejQqkMrwa7ISvR stlovuPa0vjCbLvOcHCKO6xhXTyRWipN/XEHROWr9XCH3Wy14rj4rz11kBL5ZMcUhj r5toQXkwuu1LUefLJ8ceiXhtWwq8DBWiM3Ggy6wPw+M5Hc4TR7AOexvm/NUfGbkp/D Ym6HaoWGUKSdulLuKGvYzs6ntdgwTQsW4XwzebUzVWLLH3j7msddcrzYEdOD8b5XKk A3x+dpKo80xXg== Message-ID: Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 10:16:11 -0600 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 iproute2 0/4] Multiple Spanning Tree (MST) Support Content-Language: en-US To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: roopa@nvidia.com, razor@blackwall.org, bridge@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org, liuhangbin@gmail.com, Tobias Waldekranz References: <20240702120805.2391594-1-tobias@waldekranz.com> <172020068352.8177.8028215256014256151.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org> <20240705204915.1e9333ae@hermes.local> <547c13c8-c3c3-495e-8ca9-d87156bfe3f5@kernel.org> <20240706125616.690e7b98@hermes.local> From: David Ahern In-Reply-To: <20240706125616.690e7b98@hermes.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 7/6/24 1:56 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > The original point was to have kernel -next and iproute2 -next branches > and have support arrive at same time on both sides. The problem is when > developers get behind, and the iproute2 patches arrive after the kernel cycle > and then would end up get delayed another 3 to 4 months. Then the userspace patches should be sent when the kernel patches are merged. Period. no excuses. Any delay is on the developer. > > Example: > If mst had been submitted during 6.9 -next open window, then > it would have arrived in iproute2 when -next was merged in May 2024 and > would get released concurrently with 6.10 (July 2024). > When MST was submitted later, if it goes through -next, then it would > get merged to main in August 2024 and released concurrently with 6.11 > in October. By merging to main, it will be in July. Same exact problem with netkit and I told Daniel no. We have a development policy for new features; it must apply across the board to all of them. > > I understand your concern, and probably better not to have done it. You applied patches for a new feature just a week or two before release. It is just wrong. It would be best to either back up the branch or revert them. > The problem with accepting things early is the review process gets > truncated, and new features often have lots of feedback. > I see no problem here; that is normal development work.