Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation/process: Add a maintainer handbook for KVM x86

[Sean Christopherson]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-02-17 at 14:54 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > 
> > +All topic branches, except for ``next`` and ``fixes``, are rolled into ``next``
> > +via a cthulu merge on an as-needed basis, i.e. when a topic branch is updated.
> > +As a result, force pushes to ``next`` are common.
> > +
> 
> This makes 'next' an unfortunate name, doesn't it? Since branches
> destined for "linux-next", which has been using that name for far
> longer, have exactly the opposite expectation — that they have stable
> commit IDs.

I was coming at it from the viewpoint of linux-next itself, where HEAD is rebuilt
nightly and thus is not stable.  The inputs are stable, just not the merge commit.

> Would 'staging' not be more conventional for the branch you describe?

Not really?  It's not a staging area, it really is the branch that contains the
changes for the "next" kernel.

What if I drop the above guidance and instead push a date-stamped tag when pushing
to 'next'?  That should ensure the base is reachable for everyone, and would also
provide a paper trail for what I've done, which is probably a good idea regardless.