On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 08:57:50PM +0100, Björn Töpel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I figured I'd put some words on the "how to update the RISC-V
> for-next/fixes branches [1]" that came up on the patchwork call today.
> 
> In RISC-V land, the for-next branch is used for features, and typically
> sent as a couple of PRs to Linus when the merge window is open. The
> fixes branch is sent as PR(s) between the RCs of a release.
> 
> Today, the baseline for for-next/fixes is the CURRENT_RELEASE-rc1, and
> features/fixes are based on that.
> 
> This has IMO a couple of issues:
> 
> 1. fixes is missing the non-RISC-V fixes from releases later than
>    -rc1, which makes it harder for contributors.
> 2. for-next does not have the fixes from RISC-V/rest of the kernel,
>    and it's hard for contributors to test the work on for-next (buggy,
>    no fixes, and sometime missing deps).
> 
> I used to spend a whole lot of mine time in the netdev tree of the
> kernel, and this is how they manage it (Thanks Kuba!):
> 
> Netdev (here exchanged to RISC-V trees), fast-forward fixes, and then
> cross-merge fixes into for-next -- for every -rc.
> 
> E.g., say fixes is submitted for -rc2 to Linus, once he pulls, do:
> 
>   git push --delete origin $SOMETAG
>   git tag -d $SOMETAG
>   git pull --ff-only --tags git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
>   build / test / push out.
> 
> Then pull fixes into for-next:
> 
>   git pull --tags git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux.git fixes
> 
> 
> Personally (obviously biased), I think this would be easier for
> contributors. Any downsides from a RISC-V perspective?

After you left, Palmer said he'd go for merging his fixes tag into
for-next after they got merged by Linus. At least I think it was that,
rather than Linus' -rcs...