On 12/30/2017 05:00 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:58:23 +0100 > Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote: >> Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:46:31AM CET, dan...@iogearbox.net wrote: >>> On 12/26/2017 10:35 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >>>> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:14:26PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:47:43 +0200 >>>>> Leon Romanovsky <l...@kernel.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:49:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >>>>>>> David Ahern has agreed to take over managing the net-next branch of >>>>>>> iproute2. >>>>>>> The new location is: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dsahern/iproute2-next.git/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the past, I have accepted new features into iproute2 master branch, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> am changing the policy so that outside of the merge window (up until >>>>>>> -rc1) >>>>>>> new features will get put into net-next to get some more review and >>>>>>> testing >>>>>>> time. This means that things like the proposed batch streaming mode will >>>>>>> go through net-next. >>>>>> >>>>>> Did you consider to create one shared repo for the iproute2 to allow >>>>>> multiple committers workflow? >>>>> >>>>> For now having separate trees is best, there is no need for multiple >>>>> committers the load is very light. >>>>> >>>>>> It will be much convenient for the users to have one place for >>>>>> master/stable/net-next branches, instead of actually following two >>>>>> different repositories. >>>>> >>>>> If you are doing network development, you already need to deal with >>>>> multiple repo's on the kernel side so there is no difference. >>>> >>>> I agree with you that one extra "git remote add .." is not so huge and >>>> all people who develop for the netdev will do it. My concern is about >>>> Documentation and newcomers, who will have a hard time to find a right >>>> tree. >>> >>> I guess it would certainly help to identify the official repo to rebase >>> against much quicker if it would be under a common group on korg e.g. >>> >>> * iproute2/iproute2.git - for current cycle >>> * iproute2/iproute2-next.git - for net-next bits >>> >>> and also be in line with other tooling (ethtool and others), even if >>> not as high volume, but it would make it unambiguous right away from >>> the other, private iproute2 repos on korg, imho. Just a thought. >> >> +1 >> >> I was about to suggest this. This is nice opportunity to do such change. >> >>>>>> Example, of such shared repo: >>>>>> BPF: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/ >>>>>> Bluetooth: >>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bluetooth/bluetooth-next.git/ >>>>>> RDMA: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rdma/rdma.git/ >>>>> >>>>> Most of these are high volume or vendor silo'd which is not the case >>>>> here. >>> Cheers, >>> Daniel > > Good news > kup does support links so could make links from personal to iproute2 directory
That's nice indeed! > Bad news > kup won't allow me to make iproute2 directory right now. Will have to wait for > Konstantin Right, he also did set up the shared dir for bpf which was straight forward though, so would be pretty much the same one-time procedure for iproute2. Thanks, Daniel
