On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 05:06:22PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:48:14AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > On 12.07.23 21:00, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 07:02:34PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > >> On 12.07.23 17:16, Greg KH wrote: > > > [...] > > >>>> .. warning:: > > >>>> The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc > > >>>> is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and > > >>>> applying the patches from the stable-queue on top. > > >>> > > >>> Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate > > >>> places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to > > >>> test easier. > > > [...] > > >> Nevertheless makes me wonder: is that strategy wise in times when some > > >> ordinary users and some distributions are building kernels straight from > > >> git repos instead of tarballs? I'm one of those, as I distribute > > >> stable-rc packages for Fedora here: > > >> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/kernel-vanilla/coprs/ > > > > > > As we keep the patches in quilt, not git, it's the best we can do. The > > > -rc releases are never a straight-line if we have to do multiple ones, > > > we remove patches in the middle, add them at the end or beginning, and > > > sometimes even change existing ones. > > > > > > All of this is stuff that a linear history tool like git can't really > > > model well, so we keep a quilt series of the patches in git for anyone > > > that want to generate the tree themselves, and we provide the -rc git > > > tree for those that don't want to generate it and can live with the > > > constant rebasing. > > > > /me first didn't want to reply, as this is not really important, but > > then reconsidered; again, feel free to just ignore this > > > > FWIW, I do not consider that rebasing to be problem at all; it are those > > rebases "sometimes in intermediate places, before a -rc is released, > > just to give CI systems a chance to test easier" make things this > > slightly annoying bit harder when you want to distribute stable-rc > > releases to users. > > > > But as I said, I can fully understand why you do those as well. I just > > with there was a way to reliably get a -rc release from git as well. > > Simply tagging them when you do a -rc release would solve all that. Is > > that maybe something that could be easily added to your -rc release scripts? > > I can add a tag, but it would have to be a tag that can be rebased, and > git doesn't like that very well :) I figure the desired tagging behaviour is that you do it when the email is sent out for a corresponding version & so the tag "should" not need to be rebased? > > /me looks at https://github.com/gregkh/gregkh-linux/tree/master/stable > > but failed to find the -rc release script :-/ > > Hah, no github, it's at: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/scripts/quilt-mail > > But I don't think tags will help much. I'll let anyone who actually > runs a CI that uses this to speak up to see if it would before adding > them. I'm not sure that it is particularly valuable to the usual flow of testing what is about to come down the tracks, at least in my simple case where I trigger it based on the -rc emails or whenever something else interesting happens, like a patch being dropped that breaks the build. I suppose it may be useful if an issue presents itself but disappears when a backport is dropped from the queue & some developers are interested in figuring out why the backport went awry? Other than that, I'm not sure what the value is in "I just with [sic] there was a way to reliably get a -rc release from git as well", in _my_ CI use case I don't care about the superseded stable -rc versions, just whatever is about to be released. Others with more complex CI infrastructure, like Linaro etc, might feel differently :) > Also, as proof this works, I just got a report of someone testing the > queues and finding a problem at the moment, before we sent anything out > for review. So this is working well today. > > thanks, > > greg k-h
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
