On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 08:46:43AM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > On 7/15/2017 11:57 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 02:12:42PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > >> On 7/14/2017 10:28 AM, Christopher Lameter wrote: > >>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > >>> > >>>> Join on the awesomeness. > >>> > >>> It would even be more awesome if we had multiple people that can work the > >>> release process so that we do not have a single person bottleneck. > >>> > >>> Doug: Would you please do some more detailed planning and delegate things > >>> as possible? A couple of developers should be able to review the current > >>> state of things and help to move things forward if there is a bottleneck > >>> currently or coming up. > >>> > >> > >> I am, without a doubt, reworking my process. I will not be syncing up > >> against Dave Miller's tree any more. When I take patches, they should > >> apply cleanly to my tree and work without dependencies. If there are > >> dependencies, then people need to send the dependencies through Dave's > >> tree (assuming that's where they go) in release X, and then send the > >> dependent code to my tree in release X + 1. > > > > There are two parts in this proposal, while second part (dependency) is > > fair enough and possible to meet, it is unclear to me the first part > > (apply cleanly). > > > > 1. On which branch should we send our topics? > > You can always use -rc1 as a safe starting point. I'm going to try to > open things up around then anyway. No problem, it is the same as we do it anyway for our shared code. > > > 2. Are you acknowledge that this branch is going to be updated +/- on daily basis? > > Not necessarily daily, but certainly every 2-3 days. 2-3 days in some countries is the same as to say daily :) > > > 3. How do you see us submitting multiple topics? Sequential submission - like DaveM, > > and it should be applied close to submissions (if no objections and so on ..). > > Or parallel submissions - like it is now and the conflicts are unavoidable. > > Not the parallel submissions we are using now. It generates far too > many conflicts and such. What I would prefer to see is one submission, > then two or three days (so the first submission has had some bake time), > then the next one and it should assume the first is applied and apply > cleanly on top of 4hat. I'm totally in for it. It will simplify greatly the whole my process and will allow to do more cross-tree work. Can we move to pull-request model? So our whole submission queue will participate in linux-next and we will move our testing to use it as a testing branch instead of our artificial queue-next [1]? It will allow to all of us to have trees in linux-next, because we will have same SHA1 and Stephen won't have any merge conflicts between trees. > > > 4. If 2 and 3 are not going to change, should we wait till late rc and submit all (100+) > > patches at one or two shots to avoid merge conflicts? > > > > I would be glad to get the whole picture of submission process, before > > we are moving forward. > > Is what I wrote above clear enough? Thanks, it is much clear. When do you expect to update your branches so we will be able to prepare our shared code? [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mellanox/linux.git/log/?h=queue-next > > > -- > Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> > GPG Key ID: B826A3330E572FDD > Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
