[docs] docs: maintainers: suggest including lore link for conflicts known to linux-next
Message ID | 20230713230417.1504773-1-kuba@kernel.org |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers |
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org> Delivered-To: ouuuleilei@gmail.com Received: by 2002:a59:a6b2:0:b0:3e4:2afc:c1 with SMTP id c18csp2147291vqm; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 16:15:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlGCJu0oHgR25PRFL4N9j676+pOetob7FuheKSGDQ3oOxjktH9rREfRYMHNJjX2A0QmrmMn7 X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9dcf:0:b0:2b6:d0af:effd with SMTP id x15-20020a2e9dcf000000b002b6d0afeffdmr2333998ljj.4.1689290104136; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 16:15:04 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1689290104; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Hg0PsXukHTu0yfdRzICFk9KU8wNvjjBmXJU5lF+yf55J1icTy4wgdDHKnp7gSssl0c T5PxdNgrHCxIGW0NBsYTOqEEhD2skgcDJawdzWpXV3pv17uC9g3Iyl3DNZ/Ypm0SqfGn 7iRzfJyKFc/4pXTvOYfc2WD9h09mA9jKulSiHhWDs9uIX07j9LCAqf6enu3wVhxyXv1d yct+c/XrRahjbylslrviQA5B6m8HAI01lsNRAnJe0yVodhMjIirmZS4hYfhwZCC4IqdT S8KHkduIv0BVjuW4YIgUpwwI5YePDrJTpCBznQdF2yTkaB6Q7qbJt5aLxZWuLdVQ+9n9 zclg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:dkim-signature; bh=iKDdWKR2N7eKdjs0eEF5+HXaEmWZteqd8B0lyx0A+zc=; fh=3YiWNSKg8AMMo+z/lfL1VIA5zRQYn3L+Y2MUyPfQmaE=; b=ebprfbW+a25rkE+5OhZxSDutU06cDYckXKkzUslZYIn7WonxKlgYCR9GuPyVLPFH1k VQ5O4ISS9DMcFMAjM9TDL43I2aEBf+cTxaYiWMBjRu0YcCgxM1LElJemH/hWRUuH4CpW +ODutL4Ect2Z/J3ZB2mNgiGxBTfgp4mJSyqrrp9FwnpwNiHldxwpaRr0oyrnyhb36vQ0 Cey6PZR2LwLDoAq4njrPmCSQ4LmwfR5x1A4ma0J0pwcLueFXe84qqAEoNlVX1RQ74sxH jMy3Wtd7pI7kBsVWQ6Nt75FlSODKQ/6rVA9NVDjtACa4Kjyeu8f5fYjQKKRYTfjWuR/8 VIKw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=FmTemCxF; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id hb4-20020a170906b88400b0096f81ae0ac9si8140510ejb.34.2023.07.13.16.14.39; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 16:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=FmTemCxF; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234435AbjGMXFu (ORCPT <rfc822;ybw1215001957@gmail.com> + 99 others); Thu, 13 Jul 2023 19:05:50 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46368 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231845AbjGMXFj (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 13 Jul 2023 19:05:39 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F5B02D73; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 16:05:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A518661B45; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 23:04:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB17CC433C7; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 23:04:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1689289459; bh=Z1s5R43qfeyf0CsFH9TvxSaOG72jfmcq8W4z9hdnCrU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=FmTemCxFBZCobEeGXA4UWVt6IO3vYs2m/5m4OrJSP8JpSzalMuSUWEuNwAUaj2JD1 o10VdAGTPPOXAzy9Axkb/aFBFXVXDdqJKqgLx0mQfoLm6FvQK8PCqRXIZzA7SdHB4h OBMFYz9TWbx/r2CnM+fvgucRstexPghR/sBElQUUgq8ZLfuUQ6qMeGOes60+doGMHo 6I+ScjAWaMagJw9X/P/5/Vgox+xksvf82itSxYJ+3IzmD2BPgE0vhaYIWmtiW/9b0b JultZ+R8jPKl7eOH0mTyiXKMT/Y6m2NKGH6VWRi7ulvLPRpWq2csBi+G4D9u6gsr0I dxcyFUK1Q3zrg== From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> To: corbet@lwn.net Cc: workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: [PATCH docs] docs: maintainers: suggest including lore link for conflicts known to linux-next Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 16:04:17 -0700 Message-ID: <20230713230417.1504773-1-kuba@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.41.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: INBOX X-GMAIL-THRID: 1771349060140133487 X-GMAIL-MSGID: 1771349060140133487 |
Series |
[docs] docs: maintainers: suggest including lore link for conflicts known to linux-next
|
|
Commit Message
Jakub Kicinski
July 13, 2023, 11:04 p.m. UTC
I'm not completely sure what is the best practice for notifying Linus
about conflicts which have already been resolved in linux-next.
I presume they are a no-op to him, so maybe we shouldn't even call
them out?
That's the question I was hoping to answer by reading this doc :)
For the small-time maintainers who aren't Linus including a lore link
to the resolution from linux-next is the most optimal way in my experience.
Sometimes people put the whole resolution diff into the PR message
which occasionally confuses merge prep scripts making a mess of things...
If Stephen already resolved the problem, just include the link.
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
---
Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Comments
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 16:04, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > I'm not completely sure what is the best practice for notifying Linus > about conflicts which have already been resolved in linux-next. > I presume they are a no-op to him, so maybe we shouldn't even call > them out? No, I do *not* somehow auto-merge stuff that has been merged in linux-next. I will do my own merge, and see the conflicts, and I will resolve them independently of anything that has happened in linux-next. I may then check what linux-next did, particularly if the merge was non-trivial, but honestly, that's fairly rare. And if the merge was so non-trivial that I check what happened in linux-next, it's actually not all that unlikely that I ended up resolving it differently anyway. I send out emails saying "that was wrong in linux-next" somewhat regularly. So if you were notified by Stephen that there is a conflict in linux-next, and it has been resolved there, that means that as far as linux-next is concerned - and *only* as fat as linux-next is concerned - that resolution will now continue to be done in linux-next. But you should preferably mention said conflict when you then send the pull request to me. It's perfectly fine to just mention it - say "there's a conflict in so-and-so with the pull from tree so-and-so". That will give me a heads-up to not be surprised about it. You can point to the email that Stephen sent (using lore), or you can quote his resolution (or your own, if you do a test-merge, like many people do) if you want. It's not a requirement. But I do kind of want to see the "there's a conflict" mention, not just to have a heads-up. It's also a sign that you are actually keeping track of what happens in linux-next and are on top of things. Because I've had _too_ many pull requests that actually turned out to have had problems in linux-next - merge related or not - and the developer having not tracked anything at all despite having been told about said problems, and just sent the resulting untested crap to me. So the "there's a conflict" note ends up having that kind of secondary meaning. It gives me the warm and fuzzies that the developer has actually reacted to what happened in linux-next. The corollary to that is that when I see a conflict - even if it's completely trivial - and I see it in linux-next too, and the conflict was never mentioned, I go "ok, this maintainer never actually reacted to anything that Stephen said about his tree". That often says more about the situation in general than about the particular conflict. Linus
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 05:47:18PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > You can point to the email that Stephen sent (using lore), or you can > quote his resolution (or your own, if you do a test-merge, like many > people do) if you want. It's not a requirement. Yeah, I normally do my own test merge. I might check to see if it's the same as the one which is in linux-next, but the more importantly, I then run a full set of regression tests and make sure there are no new test failures caused by the merge resolution. - Ted
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 23:16:24 -0400 Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 05:47:18PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > You can point to the email that Stephen sent (using lore), or you can > > quote his resolution (or your own, if you do a test-merge, like many > > people do) if you want. It's not a requirement. > > Yeah, I normally do my own test merge. I might check to see if it's > the same as the one which is in linux-next, but the more importantly, > I then run a full set of regression tests and make sure there are no > new test failures caused by the merge resolution. Alright, I guess we all end up intuiting in a similar way :) In this case let's ditch the patch, it may do more harm than good. Someone may read it as "if Stephen posted something - just point at it without thinking".
diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst index 85800ce95ae5..4134e63528fe 100644 --- a/Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst +++ b/Documentation/maintainer/rebasing-and-merging.rst @@ -175,7 +175,11 @@ So what should a maintainer do when there is a conflict between their subsystem branch and the mainline? The most important step is to warn Linus in the pull request that the conflict will happen; if nothing else, that demonstrates an awareness of how your branch fits into the whole. For -especially difficult conflicts, create and push a *separate* branch to show +conflicts already resolved in linux-next include a lore link to the posted +resolution. + +For especially difficult conflicts and when linux-next resolution is +not available, create and push a *separate* branch to show how you would resolve things. Mention that branch in your pull request, but the pull request itself should be for the unmerged branch.