xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] Handling of reviewed patch series

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Handling of reviewed patch series
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:47:23 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131213111959.GF23546@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20131213053611.GQ10988@dastard> <20131213111959.GF23546@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 03:19:59AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> I'm a big fan of the for-next vs for-linux split for next release work
> vs bugfixes which we've not applied yet.  The whole topic branches
> scheme makes sense for large changes like the crc work, but seems
> utterly confusing if applied to every little change, as now the amount
> of branches you can conflict againt multiplies.  I'm defintively in
> favour of a model that has less active branches.

I certainly wouldn't want to create topic branches for every
standalone patch - that doesn't make any sense from a management
overhead point of view. I'd keep a "miscellaneous" topic branch
specifically for aggregating standalone and small fixes, and that
keeps the number of topic branches under control.

The way I see it from a developer POV is that after the topic branch
is created you can check that it matches your local changes, then
just ignore it. You continue to work from the for-next branch (which
now includes your work from the topic branch), or continue to target
the unchanging master branch or the for-next merge target branch,
which would be the same as what you work from now.

In the case that you have work that is dependent on a specific topic
branch, we can add the work to the end of that topic branch rather
than create a new one. Or if you have dependencies across
everything, then you develop against for-next and we simply make
that the last topic branch to be merged into for-next.

i.e. as a developer, you really don't need to care that much about
individual topic branches and how they are managed....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>