netdev - Re: iproute2 net-next

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:46:31 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, dsa@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: iproute2 net-next

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@...nel.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