From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
To: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
ferruh.yigit@intel.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] git trees organization
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:58:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170913075845.GR2481@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170912083207.GC40060@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com>
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:32:07AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:03:30AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As you know I am currently the only maintainer of the master tree.
> > It is very convenient because I need to synchronize with others
> > only when pulling "next-*" trees.
> > But the drawback is that I should be available very often to
> > avoid stalled patches waiting in patchwork backlog.
> >
> > I feel it is the good time to move to a slightly different organization.
> > I am working closely with Ferruh Yigit for almost one year, as next-net
> > maintainer, and I think it would be very efficient to delegate him some
> > work for the master tree.
>
> I think Ferruh has been doing an excellent job on the net tree, and
> would be an excellent candidate to help with the workload on the master
> tree.
>
> > I mean that I would use the patchwork delegation to explicitly divide
> > the workload given our different experiences.
> > Ferruh, do you agree taking this new responsibility?
> >
> > At the same time, we can think how to add more git sub-trees:
>
> In principle, I'm in favour, but I think that the subtrees of the master
> tree should be at a fairly coarse granularity, and not be too many of
> them. The more subtrees, the more likely we are to have issues with
> patchsets needing to be split across trees, or having to take bits from
> multiple trees in order to test if everything is working.
<snip>
About that, how about we start allowing true merge commits instead of
rebasing (rewriting history) in order to ease things for maintainers?
This approach makes pull requests show up as a merge commits that contain
the (ideally trivial) changes needed to resolve any conflicts; this has the
following benefits:
- The work done by a maintainer during that merge is tracked, not silently
ignored or lost. The merge commit itself is signed-off by its author.
- This allows tracing mistakes or bugs to the conflict resolution itself.
- Upstream can reject pull requests on the basis that merging it is not
trivial enough (i.e. downstream must merge upstream changes first).
- Sub-trees can merge among themselves in case they need features that
encompass several trees, not necessarily always against the master
tree. Everything is tracked.
- Maintainers do not ever modify the commits they get from other trees,
which keep their SHAs unmodified as part of the history. A given commit ID
is truly unique among all trees (back-port trees remain the only exception
since commits are cherry-picked).
- It shifts the entire responsibility to the maintainers of sub-trees.
The only downside is that commits have several parents, history becomes a
graph that developers need to get used to (some might call it a mess),
however that's probably not an issue for those already used to Linux kernel
development and other large projects.
I know this was already discussed in the past, however I think adding more
sub-trees will make rebasing too complex otherwise.
Thoughts?
--
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-13 7:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-11 22:03 Thomas Monjalon
2017-09-12 8:32 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-09-12 8:48 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-09-12 13:01 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-09-12 16:34 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-09-13 7:58 ` Adrien Mazarguil [this message]
2017-09-13 11:38 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-09-13 12:25 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-09-13 13:21 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-09-13 14:54 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2017-09-14 2:25 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-09-14 8:22 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-09-14 9:03 ` Bruce Richardson
2017-09-14 9:18 ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-09-14 12:50 ` Wiles, Keith
2017-09-14 9:11 ` Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-09-14 17:57 ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-09-12 16:32 ` Ferruh Yigit
2017-09-12 20:20 ` Thomas Monjalon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170913075845.GR2481@6wind.com \
--to=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).