On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 03:25:28PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Maxime, > > CC sfr > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 2:51 PM Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 12:53:42PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 11:45:37AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 06:29:50PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 04:32:55PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 02:39:15PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 10:57:23AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 9:15 AM Uwe Kleine-König > > > > > > > > <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Together with the patches that were applied later the topmost commit > > > > > > > > > from this series is c2807ecb5290 ("drm/omap: Convert to platform remove > > > > > > > > > callback returning void"). This commit was part for the following next > > > > > > > > > tags: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $ git tag -l --contains c2807ecb5290 > > > > > > > > > next-20230609 > > > > > > > > > next-20230613 > > > > > > > > > next-20230614 > > > > > > > > > next-20230615 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However in next-20230616 they are missing. In next-20230616 > > > > > > > > > drm-misc/for-linux-next was cf683e8870bd4be0fd6b98639286700a35088660. > > > > > > > > > Compared to c2807ecb5290 this adds 1149 patches but drops 37 (that are > > > > > > > > > also not included with a different commit id). The 37 patches dropped > > > > > > > > > are 13cdd12a9f934158f4ec817cf048fcb4384aa9dc..c2807ecb5290: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $ git shortlog -s 13cdd12a9f934158f4ec817cf048fcb4384aa9dc..c2807ecb5290 > > > > > > > > > 1 Christophe JAILLET > > > > > > > > > 2 Jessica Zhang > > > > > > > > > 5 Karol Wachowski > > > > > > > > > 1 Laura Nao > > > > > > > > > 27 Uwe Kleine-König > > > > > > > > > 1 Wang Jianzheng > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess this was done by mistake because nobody told me about dropping > > > > > > > > > my/these patches? Can c2807ecb5290 please be merged into drm-misc-next > > > > > > > > > again? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it was probably a mistake that these patches got merged to > > > > > > > > linuxnext during the 4 days that you noticed. However, your patches > > > > > > > > aren't dropped and are still present in drm-misc-next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drm-misc has a bit of a unique model and it's documented fairly well here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/drm-misc.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a flaw then in this unique model (or its implementation) when > > > > > > > drm-misc/for-linux-next moves in a non-fast-forward manner? This isn't > > > > > > > expected, is it? > > > > > > > > > > > > There's no expectation afaik. Any tree merged in linux-next can be > > > > > > rebased, drop a patch, amend one, etc. without any concern. > > > > > > > > > > I agree that there are no rules broken for a tree that is included in > > > > > next and a maintainer is free to rewrite their tree independant of the > > > > > tree being included in next. > > > > > > > > > > Still I think that shouldn't be used as an excuse. > > > > > > > > As an excuse for what? > > > > > > Just because the rules for trees in next allow the merged branch to be > > > rewritten, shouldn't be used to justify rewriting the branch. > > > > > > IMHO you still should ensure that only commits make it into any next > > > snapshot via your tree before X-rc1 for some X (e.g. v6.5) that you > > > intend to be included in X-rc1. > > > > That's never been a next rule either. Rust support has been in next for > > almost a year without being sent as a PR for example. > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst#L297 > > "The linux-next tree is, by design, a snapshot of what the mainline > is expected to look like after the next merge window closes." > > The general rule for linux-next is that its contents are intended to end > up in the next kernel release, and that it should not contain commits > that are intended for the next-next release, cfr. what Stephen sends > out to new trees: > > "You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have > been: > [...] > * destined for the current or next Linux merge window." > > and what he requests regularly in his announces, e.g.: > > "Please do not add any v6.4 related commits to your linux-next included > branches until after v6.3-rc1 has been released." Which is why those patches aren't in next anymore. > AFAIU, the exception to the rule is new, self-contained, and sometimes > controversial development, which may have to cook for a few more cycles, > if it ends up in a PR at all. > > > > > > For me, if a maintainer puts some patch into next that's a statement > > > > > saying (approximately) "I think this patch is fine and I intend to > > > > > send it to Linus during the next merge window.". > > > > > > > > I mean, that's what we're saying and doing? > > > > > > No, on 2023-06-09 I assumed that my patches will go into v6.5-rc1 (as it > > > was part of next-20230609). A few days later however the patches were > > > dropped. > > > > > > The two options that would have made the experience smoother for me are: > > > > > > a) keep c2807ecb5290 in next and send it for v6.5-rc1; or > > > > That's not an option. You were simply too late for v6.5-rc1, unless you > > expect us to get rid of timezones and work on week-ends. But surely you > > don't. > > I don't think anyone expects you to do that... > > > > b) keep c2807ecb5290 in a branch that doesn't result it entering next > > > before v6.5-rc1. > > > > All the drm-misc committers use dim. If that's a concern for you, feel > > free to send a patch addressing this to dim. > > So you say this is an issue with the tooling? ;-) > If the tooling breaks the rules, perhaps the tooling should be fixed? We've been using dim for more than 5 years. It doesn't seem to work too bad? And it does feel like the goalposts are moving there: the discussion started by "you shouldn't rebase a tree" and is now at "patches should never be in a next branch if they can't reach the next merge window, even though it's not apparent yet" But yeah, I now that complaining about how much drm-misc sucks is fun and all, but it's still not clear to me what a potential solution to this would be? Knowing that we can't rebase or close drm-misc-next, and that it should be automated in dim somehow, what would that fix be? > > So yeah, sorry if it was confusing. At the end of the day, it's a > > compromise, and I can't find a better one for everyone involved > > (maintainers, contributors and committers alike) off the top of my head. > > As I understand, the main issue Uwe is objecting to, is that his > patches ended up in linux-next first, only to be dropped again from > linux-next later, and that there was no communication about the > latter. > > If you're not constantly working on a subsystem, it can be very hard > to keep track of the status of your own drive-by patches. When patches > get applied, appear in linux-next, and disappear from linux-next again > later, it's worse... Sure, I've worked with enough of these series to understand how it can be annoying. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature