On 1/15/18 6:56 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> 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.
Done a few days ago. The new canonical URLs for those repos are:
pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2
pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next
So clone URLs
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next.git
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2-next.git
and
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git
