From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 712ED14C5AE for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:45:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717541107; cv=none; b=lCBm14nvA9mc8CEy6HnCHZjzuTLMBrKLf6dFIi4weqnB65GVT52kaeLQmZlYADCMtP6mpTjNHupEvRN7ugsiQ7FM6srZO9StWLIi2NGx56C+IOTrgaSM6cyygAwjmC8ab+WDFgArm5R8JWOtB1OGcnZthATnjqxfdqK93+RxIfU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717541107; c=relaxed/simple; bh=84Vy09vnLCOWNP3zxbvv0y2fSylK/0SUTe/KQEzdCyY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GRMTTsmjqB2XwwS+5DJ5dfVAG5VgJ/PIjlNcqs090cT8INc7fYcEvhwKn/9NK+qb6/FaX1zTZtv1H5xuv2eRwB31fG1zl73SX55g2e1yW/knvr+a/7Rc69nfM2t87yV+nNtqTL7NeQvPbG+teHvmEyncVnkEKpzdknniP7VCh/Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A05DEC2BBFC; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 18:45:06 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Jiri Kosina Cc: ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Merge tree too flat? Message-ID: <20240604184506.007c4682@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20240604182137.2cfdc0b2@gandalf.local.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.20.0git84 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 00:34:04 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Kosina 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