Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Any feedback for -next?
Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-next,dev.linux.lists.ksummit |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <anyjG-mMuaDox3eN@laps> |
On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 05:37:30PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 01:19:05PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 05:54:59PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > Any other ideas? > >> One thing I recently wondered is if it would make sense to not merge one >> tree after another into the same tree, but first create pairs, then >> merge two pairs, ... > >> The advantage is that if commit B breaks something there are less >> intermediate trees that don't contain B and you can still test on e.g. >> D+E. > >> I'm not convinced the advantages outweight the additional effort, but >> IMHO this is a bit similar to the request by the filesystem guys to have >> a tree with only filesystem changes. > >> So this is just an idea that might be worth to be thought about by more >> than just me. > >Yeah, there was also Sasha was talking about something with trying to >make loosely topic based subtrees. As you mention there's a scripting >and comprehensibility cost to doing something like this, both when >building the tree and when trying to understand the results. If people Right. I have an experiment that I ran here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sashal/linux-next.git/ where I scripted something that generates those *-next branches based on category tags I've added to the manifest: https://gist.github.com/sashalevin/15dbe4cfe2e2a3c4706788b07ef48079 . >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. -- Thanks, Sasha