Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Any feedback for -next?

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 12:45:15PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 05:37:30PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > actually want the intermediate trees directly like with the filesystems
> > stuff then sure, but if there's no demand for the specific combinations
> > of trees I'm not sure it's worth it.

> > There's also the issue of incremental build benefits.

> Which is mostly the reason I kept silent on this thread :)

> My original goal with that work was to evaluate AI merge conflict resolution
> and measure it against the work that both the -next folks do as well as Linus.

> I suppose that if folks are interested, this is something I can keep running
> consistently, with the caveat that conflict resolutions are purely AI driven,
> which could be enough for something we feed to CI and bots.

Like I say if it's useful to people I'm not completely against the idea,
I'd just rather not pay the costs if nobody is going to benefit from it.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmp8pz4ACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9AS7AgAgYGc7prywsT2WcPi8RizASlnCsJ5GrpFFgI9KpadEv8rDGEAOWVY7aE0
kXzkDDejC40jMnh13WHkI8pLq8+w7UP1/Sne/fn36MhY+8wz7UGY+CtV3e25iZzC
6Ss9BZGwVvyjccZB5cDkZgkGNUu7LahqxGKASmSoXceJ2VXcVr8FbV87xzYqe6Ob
ZVficLv/powL+/zCYs2dsQOAUT2X8WwOcX9tjIAxacSbt6qXkRHYCkpP1n880nhY
wQHhCWJ2sFms8Tbd3Xfppau6oWkUSXLblWferyfw1yqCYRW6OoPx5Hkm+JUBrze/
zPTeZOtsj7e8SG3wfXeNrg7raKss3w==
=+5M6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----