lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRISC-V for-next/fixes (cont'd from PW sync)
Date
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/linuxgit 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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 16:12    [W:0.278 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site