On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 08:00:28PM -0800, 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 > > Bad news > kup won't allow me to make iproute2 directory right now. Will have to wait for > Konstantin >
Hi, any news on this? Not sure if Konstantin is back already or not. Thanks, Marcelo
