On 9/23/19 3:41 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 11:41 AM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
TL;DR: We expect KUnit to be accepted upstream into Linus' branch in
the next week or two, and we now need to figure out what we are going
to do with our non-upstream 'kunit/alpha/master' branch.
Given that it has been about a week and we haven't heard any comments,
complaints, or concerns about this. I assume that there are no strong
opinions against this, and people will be generally okay with this
strategy.
As mentioned previously, we are expecting to see KUnit make it into
torvalds/master this merge window (the next week or so), so we will
probably update/rename kunit/alpha/master shortly thereafter.
Cheers
Hello everyone,
We've put together a rough proposal of what we should do with our
not-upstream branch, known to most people using it as
'kunit/alpha/master'[1], now that KUnit's acceptance into mainline
appears to be imminent (the KUnit MVP patchset is now in linux-next,
and the merge window just opened).
==========
Background
==========
KUnit development is currently split between two versions: the
'kunit/alpha/master'[1] git branch, and the version being submitted to
the upstream Linux kernel. While there are some good reasons to
continue to have two separate versions of KUnit, at present there is
some uncertainty around the difference between these versions, and in
which circumstances each version is useful.
At present, the 'kunit/alpha/master' branch serves a few different
purposes. It is a place for code not-yet-ready for upstream -- such as
the mocking framework -- while being developed, while also acting as a
stable version for customers who do not wish to follow along with the
changes made during the upstreaming process. Adding to the confusion,
the name 'kunit/alpha/master' refers to an early (alpha) version of
KUnit, and the version of KUnit being upstreamed has now diverged
significantly from this version, requiring significant differences in
documentation, and requiring a number of changes to tests when porting
from one version to the other. Finally, it is not clear how the
'kunit/alpha/master' version should evolve as features it contains are
upstreamed.
On the other hand, the version being upstreamed has its own
complications. It contains significantly fewer features (as features
such as the mocking frameworks will be upstreamed individually), and
so is less useful for the average customer. Until each feature is
upstreamed, it is iterated on rapidly to address comments from the
kernel community, so in-progress features are not stable enough to
reasonably build on. Finally, it exists only as a set of patches on
mailing lists, rather than as a maintained git repository (due to the
fact that the patches themselves are changing rapidly), making it
difficult for early adopters to incorporate into their own trees.
Whilst we believe there to be enough (at times conflicting) goals
above to justify having multiple versions of KUnit, we want to ensure
that they are meeting their goals, and that we have a process to
ensure that code finds its way into the correct version, that we can
deprecate and remove failed experiments or superseded versions, and
that we can keep pace with upstream kernel releases.
============
The Proposal
============
We propose having two tracks of development: the upstream kernel
(comprising both code that has been upstreamed, and code which is in
the process of being upstreamed -- i.e. is being reviewed on the
mailing lists), and an 'experimental' branch, which contains features
which are yet to be submitted upstream.
My concern with this approach is either one could outdated. is there a
reason continue in parallel mode. I would rathet see development happen
upstream so we don't have lot of code to be upstreamed sitting in an
experimental branch while upstream keeps moving. It is given that they
will diverge.
thanks,
-- Shuah
