On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 09:32:44AM GMT, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:25:25AM -0300, Helen Koike wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 24/06/2024 02:34, Vignesh Raman wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 15/03/24 22:50, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > > 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.
>
> This sounds more like you want an integration tree like drm-tip. Get msm
> branches integrated there, done. Backmerges just for integration testing
> are not a good idea indeed.
Is it fine to get drm/msm{-fixes,-next} into drm-tip?
> What exactly is the issue in backmerging drm-misc-next (well through
> drm-next really)?
drm-misc-next is its own tree with separate cadence, its own bugs and
misfeatures. But probably just picking up drm-next for the tests should
be fine.
> Also if there is an issue, generally we do ad-hoc topic branches.
>
> I'm very very skeptical of boutique trees with tiny focus, we've had that
> before drm-misc, it's a mess. Definitely no enthusiasm for getting back
> to that kind of world.
> -Sima
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
