> On Sep 23, 2020, at 3:28 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:23:51PM +0000, Song Liu wrote: >> >> >>> 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? > > It will create headaches for linux-next that merges bpf-next/master. > All linux-next trees should not add patches to those trees that are not going > into the merge window. I see. Keeping bpf-next/master for linux-next/master does make sense. How about we keep bpf-next/next always open, or maybe rename it as bpf-next/dev? Developers could always base their work on bpf-next/dev. When the maintainer applies the patch, he can decide whether to apply it to both master and dev, or just dev. Thanks, Song
