On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 02:10:57AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 12:28 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 03:25:26AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Friday, February 7, 2025 1:16:11 PM Eastern Standard Time Konstantin > > > Ryabitsev wrote: > > > > > > It is my goal to be able to give subsystems a way to use forges without it > > > > impacting how they interact with upstream or handle tree-wide changes. That > > > > is, once I'm done moving things from one Benevolent Company to another. > > > > > Honestly, this is probably not possible. If a subsystem moves to a forge > > > workflow, it pretty much means tree-wide changes need to work partially that > > > way too. > > > > We do actually have some people using forges already, for example the > > SOF people do a bunch of their review on github and then turn that into > > patch serieses which they send via the normal email route when they're > > happy with them. I think tree wide stuff flows in via back merges or > > rebases, one of the benefits of delegation is that it's not my problem. > > This all works perfectly well from my side, as far as I know it's fine > > for the SOF people too. It certainly doesn't seem insurmountable. > > It might be working as long as a subsystem continues to allow > receiving patches via email. As soon as a subsystem decides to stop > doing that (which is absolutely their right given the model of > subsystem maintenance that the Linux project has), I think this will > break down very quickly. > > I wonder which team will be the first one to do it. It's not a > question of if, but when. Then it will be a matter of patches affecting their subtree getting merged through the mainline. All there is to it...
