On 24/06/2024 02:34, Vignesh Raman wrote:
Hi,
On 15/03/24 22:50, Rob Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 2:28 AM Jani Nikula
<jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When we first merged drm/ci I was unsure if it would need it's own
-next branch. But after using it for a couple releases, a few times
I've found myself wanting to backmerge drm/ci changes without
necessarily backmerging all of drm-misc-next.
So, maybe it makes some sense to have a drm-ci-next branch that
driver-maintainers could back-merge as-needed?
That's a crossmerge instead of a backmerge, and I feel that could get
messy. What if folks crossmerge drm-ci-next but it gets rejected for
drm-next? Or the baselines are different, and the crossmerge pulls in
way more stuff than it should?
Yeah, it would defeat the point a bit of drm-ci-next was on too new of
a baseline, the whole point is to be able to merge CI changes without
pulling in unrelated changes. So drm-ci-next would need to base on
something older, like the previous kernel release tag.
IMO the route should be drm-ci-next -> pull request to drm-next ->
backmerge drm-next to drivers and drm-misc-next.
I'm not opposed to having drm-ci-next at all, mainly indifferent, but I
question the merge flows. And then the question becomes, does my
suggested merge flow complicate your original goal?
I guess we could avoid merging drm-ci-next until it had been merged
into drm-next?
Basically, I often find myself needing to merge CI patches on top of
msm-next in order to run CI, and then after a clean CI run, reset HEAD
back before the merge and force-push. Which isn't really how things
should work.
There are many CI patches merged recently to drm-misc-next.
With the GitLab 18.0 release, CI/CD pipeline configurations must
transition from using the deprecated CI_JOB_JWT to the new id_tokens
method, as the former will be removed.
Without the below commit kernel-build job pipelines fail in drm-ci,
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/misc/kernel/-/commit/cc806b74466672a9bbd4e9a04265d44eb506b686
We need to cherry pick only this commit to fix this issue.
So it would be beneficial to have a drm-ci-next branch.
Regards,
Vignesh
I don't mind using a drm-ci-next branch if it is created.
Thanks
Helen
