Re: Process (was Re: [PATCH mm-hotfixes-unstable v18 00/14] khugepaged: add mTHP) collapse support

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 05:43:11PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> >>> and have people
> >>> base work against that?
> >>
> >> This I'm not so sure how it would work. Assuming we have submaintainers with
> >> their trees and branches, the final "stable branch" is merged from those.
> >
> > I feel like it could get hairy pretty quick, but I guess the key thing here is -
> > maintainers resolve merge conflicts.
> >
> > As long as we have a specific _solid_ basis for work.
> >
> > I think actually this speaks to it being sensible for each submaintainer with a
> > separate tree to maintain their own repos rather than branches.
> >
> > We need to determine what this baseline would be for each tree though.
> >
> > So perhaps each submaintainer tree has for-mm-next that's the stable branch from
> > mm-next + any stabliised local changes.
> >
> > And each week this gets merged to mm-next, and everybody resets to mm-next
> > stable branch?
>
> I think it gets way more complicated than that once we involve hotfix branches,
> and dependencies between hotfixes, topic branches and all of that. And in
> particular, if we have to drop a topic branch in some circumstances.
>
> My first step will be to understand "how would it look like without
> submaintainers" when only having topic branches.
>
> Then, add a complexity level on top with subcomonent maintainers :)
>
> I'll probably schedule a session in 2 weeks.
>
> Whom to invite?

I guess can look at the list of current, active, involved submaintainers?

Can also send a general mail to linux-mm about it too?

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David

Cheers, Lorenzo