On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 09:34:02AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Wed, 21 Sep, at 07:59:51PM, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > Just curious, are there any plans to integrate the new repo into > > linux-next? It would be great to have testing as early as possible. > > Yes, the existing one is also part of linux-next once it gets merged > into tip. The issue has been that I didn't send pull requests to tip > frequently enough for that to happen on a regular basis. > > Ard has already mentioned that he'd like to see that change. Excellent, thank you. > > Also, if this isn't too much trouble, would it be possible to merge > > urgent into next when patches are added in the future? When I tested > > my patches during this release cycle, I tried to pull in everything > > from efi/urgent + efi/next into my development branch but hit some > > non-trivial merge conflicts in portions of the EFI code I wasn't > > familiar with. And ISTR that efi/next was based on 4.7, not 4.8-rc. > > In the end I just rebased my patches on efi/next, but felt a bit uneasy > > as I wasn't testing what the code would eventually look like. > > This is a fair request. The only reason this hasn't happened in the > past is that no one has ever asked for it to happen regularly. > > 'next' and 'urgent' are intended to be topic branches, and they're > based on tags that align with their purpose - 'next' is new features > and needs a stable base and lots of testing time, whereas 'urgent' is > critical bug fixes and so needs to be based on the latest -rc. > > While I don't think it makes sense to merge those branches together, > using the 'master' branch as the place with all the changes plus the > merge resolutions sounds fine to me. This is similar to how the tip > repository is structured. > > Would that work? Yes, sure thing. And if efi/master is part of linux-next, you'll automatically get testing for 'urgent' patches as well and thus a bit of extra confidence before the merge into tip a few days later. Just to provide an additional data point, the i915 folks have a drm-intel-next branch and a drm-intel-fixes branch, the latter mostly just cherry-picks from the former. Plus there's drm-intel-nightly which merges everything together (drm-intel + drm-misc branches, Dave Airlie's drm-next, sound etc) and which my own development branch is also based on. Some people run drm-intel-nightly all the time, plus the linux-next coverage this adds up to a considerable safety net. So the 'master' branch you've mentioned would sort of be the equivalent to drm-intel-nightly. Yeah, that would definitely work. Best regards, Lukas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
