[Ksummit-discuss] Maintainer's Summit Agenda Planning

[Jani Nikula]

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.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center