Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Maintainer's Summit Agenda Planning

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 17:25 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 21:51 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > On Mon, 09 Oct 2017, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnersh
> > > ip.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 18:49 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do you suggest one big patch, that goes to who?  Or lots of
> > > > > little
> > > > > patches that go out at once to the individual maintainers of the
> > > > > affected code?
> > > > 
> > > > I was actually thinking we validate the script and if there are no
> > > > problems, apply it at -rc1 ... so effectively one big patch.
> > > 
> > > By -rc1 we (drm in general, drm/i915 in particular) will already have
> > > accumulated easily 4-5 weeks' worth of commits for the *next* merge
> > > window. Applying treewide stuff to Linus' tree at -rc1 forces a
> > > backmerge and potentially conflicts galore
> > 
> > If we're applying a semantic patch script (and we've verified it works
> > well enough to use the script on the -rc1 main tree), couldn't you
> > simply apply it to your tree at the same time?
> 
> If we did, the fixes would show up in a later kernel release. Which is
> just fine for us. In other words, just let subsystems and drivers handle
> this as they see fit?

Scheduling and acceptance rates are the issue.

Also some scripted patches require complete treewide
application to allow things like API changes.