Re: Policy regarding linux-next only changes

[Mark Brown]

On Sun, Jul 05, 2026 at 02:02:11PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:

> I don't follow. If it were to be agreed that linux-next is the right
> place for those tests, then those patches could simply be extra
> branches that Mark could merge at the end -- no need to `git reset`
> the "normal" subsystem branches.

> In other words, just like you are doing with your branch, essentially.
> But it is something that needs to be agreed upon first.

Yes, this is a good approach. Branches can be added or removed
pretty easily so there's no problem on my end - I add temporary branches
relatively often, there's currently one for Uwe's device ID reworks for
example.  Sometimes trees are managed in a way that makes it easy for
the tree to do this locally too (eg, arm-soc merges all their topic
branches themselves) so the maintainer might be happy to add things to
their tree but if not then a temporary branch is a good approach.

If for some reason there's some difficulty in working with the relevant
maintainers (eg, they're just not responding to mail at all) the process
of asking for a branch to be added to -next is also a good way of making
people aware that there's some issues and having some degree of
coordination.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature