On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 05:32:29PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 09:25:54AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023, Oliver Upton wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 09:37:45AM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 05:03:36PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > > +As a general guideline, use ``kvm-x86/next`` even if a patch/series touches > > > > > +multiple architectures, i.e. isn't strictly scoped to x86. Using any of the > > > > > +branches from the main KVM tree is usually a less good option as they likely > > > > > +won't have many, if any, changes for the next release, i.e. using the main KVM > > > > > +tree as a base is more likely to yield conflicts. And if there are non-trivial > > > > > +conflicts with multiple architectures, coordination between maintainers will be > > > > > +required no matter what base is used. Note, this is far from a hard rule, i.e. > > > > > +use a different base for multi-arch series if that makes the most sense. > > > > > > I don't think this is the best way to coordinate with other architectures. > > > Regardless of whether you intended this to be prescriptive, I'm worried most > > > folks will follow along and just base patches on kvm-x86/next anyway. > > > > Probably, but for the target audience (KVM x86 contributors), that's likely the > > least awful base 99% of the time. > > Sorry, I follow this reasoning at all. I *don't* follow ... -- Thanks, Oliver
