Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Merge tree too flat?

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 00:34:04 +0200 (CEST)
Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jun 2024, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > Note, the git tree may hide some hierarchy too. For example, I'm starting
> > to do pulls from Daniel Bristot for his rtla tooling. But since I have a
> > topic branch for his work, I just do a fetch from his pull request, and
> > then copy his pull request cover letter (with some tweaks) directly to Linus.  
> 
> Right; that's exactly how it should be done in my view.
> 
> But if Daniel's tree has always fed into yours (no matter whether the 'git 
> merge' way or 'apply patch' way), in doesn't really decrease the net 
> effort one level above.

I disagree. I use to take his patches and pull them in. But having him do
it, and also write the pull request, makes my job so much easier.

Note, I review his work, but not some much as if I were to review his
patches. I look at it at a different level when it's a pull request. I
trust Daniel enough to not go through his work with a fine comb, but
instead just look to make sure the general idea is sound.

How would imagine this being different than having a hierarchy. I would be
doing the same thing if I had done a merge. Actually, it is a merge, but I
do a "fast-forward" merge since he's the only one modifying the topic
branch. And it would look funny if I had done a merge, and then send the
same merge to Linus, where we have two merges back to back. Hence why I do
a fast-forward merge and use his pull request commit message in the one I
send to Linus.

-- Steve