On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 03:45:46PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> Greg, Stephen, Konstantin, >> >> so for the Linux backports project [0] we rely on a few git trees: >> >> * linux-next.git >> * linux-stable.git >> * linux.git >> >> The linux.git tree is required for RC releases. The linux-stable.git >> tree for extraversion stable releases, and the linux-next.git tree for >> daily snapshots. There is a trick for stable releases whereby we >> accelerate the integration of pending-stable patches by cherry picking >> them out of linux-next.git if the commit log entry has the >> 'stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' on the commit log, and if the stable patch >> does not apply we require the developers to provide a backport >> compatible port. This trick works swell on linux-next.git for RC >> release given that we can query for rc releases there as linux-next >> carries them but linux-next.git does not carry extra version tags. >> Additionally the requirement of linux.git is only there given that at >> times there are delays between which linux-stable.git will not have an >> RC release on it. I have a way to address all these issues, namely to >> add linux.git as a remote for my local linux-stable tree, and also by >> adding linux-stable as a local remote for my linux-next tree. Now, I >> document how I resolve this for backport package consumers / builders >> but it occurs to me perhaps we can simplify this if we had: >> >> * linux-next - pulling in linux-stable packs / tags >> * a new linux-releases.git - which has both linux.git and >> linux-stable pulled together through a cronjob >> >> Would this be reasonable to accommodate to help ease of use or shall >> we just live with folks having to do the remote / local remote hacks? > > I pull the linux.git tree into linux-stable.git every few -rc releases, > and as it's based on linux.git, it's really not a big deal. Keyword: "few", which is fine for those who can / want to wait, in my case I need them as they come. > I don't see how pulling linux-stable into linux-next really helps anyone > out, linux-stable is so far behind what is in linux-next it's not funny. By pulling linux-stable into linux-next you get to be able to run things like this from within linux-next: git format-patch --grep="stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" -o $PENDING_STABLE_DIR v3.5.4.. $MY_FILES That is, from v3.5.4 up to that day's linux-next tag. Without linux-stable linux-next does not get the v3.5.4 tags to allow me / users of compat-drivers to do this. We do this to accelerate the incorporation of stable pending-stable patches into a release based on a stable extraversion release. > But, if you really want it all in a single tree, can't you just do this > with a few 'remote' markings in your git configuration file for the repo > and do it locally if you want to? > > Otherwise I don't see the real question here. Right, absolutely! Using a remote arrangements fixes this completely for me. I alone can live happy doing what I do but since I have users depending on using compat-drivers to make their own set of releases and test things it means I have to get folks using compat-drivers to also set up the same git remotes arrangements. That's fine but I'm looking to simplify it if I can for users. > confused probably due to a bad case of jet lag, No problem :) I obviously could just push my own tree to do this as well but as for linux-next pulling linux-stable it seemed a trusty cronjob would be more trustworthy than me pushing stuff regularly. Likewise for linux-stable pulling more regularly linux. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
