[Ksummit-discuss] Maintainer's Summit Agenda Planning
jani.nikula at intel.com
Tue Oct 17 08:34:23 UTC 2017
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Joe Perches <joe at perches.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 17:25 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley at HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 21:51 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 09 Oct 2017, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley at HansenPartnersh
>> > > ip.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 18:49 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Do you suggest one big patch, that goes to who? Or lots of
>> > > > > little
>> > > > > patches that go out at once to the individual maintainers of the
>> > > > > affected code?
>> > > >
>> > > > I was actually thinking we validate the script and if there are no
>> > > > problems, apply it at -rc1 ... so effectively one big patch.
>> > >
>> > > By -rc1 we (drm in general, drm/i915 in particular) will already have
>> > > accumulated easily 4-5 weeks' worth of commits for the *next* merge
>> > > window. Applying treewide stuff to Linus' tree at -rc1 forces a
>> > > backmerge and potentially conflicts galore
>> > If we're applying a semantic patch script (and we've verified it works
>> > well enough to use the script on the -rc1 main tree), couldn't you
>> > simply apply it to your tree at the same time?
>> If we did, the fixes would show up in a later kernel release. Which is
>> just fine for us. In other words, just let subsystems and drivers handle
>> this as they see fit?
> Scheduling and acceptance rates are the issue.
> Also some scripted patches require complete treewide
> application to allow things like API changes.
As described in https://lwn.net/Articles/735468/ we have a pretty
extensive and growing CI system in place. We don't apply a single patch
without a pre-merge green light from CI, no exceptions. I take issue
with applying any patches to our driver that didn't go through our CI
first, let alone bypassing our repositories.
If an API change requires a flag day treewide change in a 15M+ line
hierarchically developed codebase, you're just plain doing it wrong.
Please just let subsystems and drivers handle this as they see fit, and
queue changes via their trees.
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
More information about the Ksummit-discuss