On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 08:40:37PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:10:34PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > I do think that could be a useful topic to cover in stable discussions
> > at KS, we've always focused on the stable trees but there's a much
> > broader spectrum of work going on there.

> I agree it would be fun to talk about it, but the relevance of it to 90%
> of the people in the room whose day-job doesn't have to deal with that
> type of thing, is probably very low.

> Let's stick to the stable workflow issues here, not the "why aren't
> companies getting their code upstream and have to keep these big trees"
> issue.  Which might be a fine separate topic to bring up, but usually we
> all know the reasons there, and no one who is invited to KS can resolve
> them...

I wasn't thinking about the out of tree code discussion but rather the
discussion we've been having here about workflows for feature backports
and use/applicability of things like LTSI for sharing those.  That seems
to have generated some interest, it seems clear that we've got some
interest and some diversity of opinion.  Perhaps it might fit better
outside the main day as a breakout session of some kind but we ought to
be able to something useful.

> > > of patches, not a kernel tree, meaning merges or cherry-picks are non-trivial.
> > > Sure, one can create a kernel tree from it, but that is not the same.

> > This is actually the main reason why I've never got around to pushing
> > things back into LTSI (it has been a little while since I last did that
> > admittedly).  The effort involved in figuring out the tooling for LTSI
> > always got in the way before anything productive came of it, having a
> > directly usable git tree would be *so* much easier.

> Ok fine, I'll work on that, but if I do so, I will expect to see patches
> from you for it :)

I think I can manage two patches :)