> On Sep 23, 2020, at 3:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 02:48:24PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:20 PM Alexei Starovoitov >> <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> BPF developers, >>> >>> The merge window is 1.5 weeks away or 2.5 weeks if rc8 happens. In the past we >>> observed a rush of patches to get in before bpf-next closes for the duration of >>> the merge window. Then there is a flood of patches right after bpf-next >>> reopens. Both periods create unnecessary tension for developers and maintainers. >>> In order to mitigate these issues we're planning to keep bpf-next open >>> during upcoming merge window and if this experiment works out we will keep >>> doing it in the future. The problem that bpf-next cannot be fully open, since >>> during the merge window lots of trees get pulled by Linus with inevitable bugs >>> and conflicts. The merge window is the time to fix bugs that got exposed >>> because of merges and because more people test torvalds/linux.git than >>> bpf/bpf-next.git. >>> >>> Hence starting roughly one week before the merge window few risky patches will >>> be applied to the 'next' branch in the bpf-next tree instead of >> >> Riskiness would be up to maintainers to determine or should we mark >> patches with a different tag (bpf-next-next?) explicitly? > > "Risky" in a sense of needing a revert. The bpf tree and two plus -rc1 to -rc7 > weeks should be enough to address any issues except the most fundamental ones. > Something like the recent bpf_tail_call support in subprograms I would consider > for the "next" branch if it was posted a day before the merge window. > In practice, I suspect, such cases will be rare. > > I think bpf-next-next tag should not be used. All features are for [bpf-next]. > Fixes are for [bpf]. The bpf-next/next is a temporary parking place for patches > while the merge window is ongoing. I wonder whether we can move/rename the branch around so that the developers can always base their work on bpf-next/master. Something like: Long before merge window for 5.15: We only have bpf-next/master 1 week before merge window for 5.15: Clone bpf-next/master as bpf-next/for-5.15 >From -1 week to the end of merge window Risky features only goes to bpf-next/master, bug fix goes in both master and for-5.15 After merge window: Fast forward bpf-next/master based on net-next. Deprecate for-5.15. Would this work? Thanks, Song
