[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ttkro3b5.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 20:57:50 +0100
From: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Paul Walmsley
<paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou
<aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>, Samuel
Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>, Alexandre Ghiti
<alexghiti@...osinc.com>, Björn Töpel
<bjorn@...osinc.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Andy Chiu <andy.chiu@...ive.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RISC-V for-next/fixes (cont'd from PW sync)
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists