On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 12:53:42PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 11:45:37AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 06:29:50PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > Hello Maxime, > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 04:32:55PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 02:39:15PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 10:57:23AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 9:15 AM Uwe Kleine-König > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Together with the patches that were applied later the topmost commit > > > > > > > from this series is c2807ecb5290 ("drm/omap: Convert to platform remove > > > > > > > callback returning void"). This commit was part for the following next > > > > > > > tags: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $ git tag -l --contains c2807ecb5290 > > > > > > > next-20230609 > > > > > > > next-20230613 > > > > > > > next-20230614 > > > > > > > next-20230615 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However in next-20230616 they are missing. In next-20230616 > > > > > > > drm-misc/for-linux-next was cf683e8870bd4be0fd6b98639286700a35088660. > > > > > > > Compared to c2807ecb5290 this adds 1149 patches but drops 37 (that are > > > > > > > also not included with a different commit id). The 37 patches dropped > > > > > > > are 13cdd12a9f934158f4ec817cf048fcb4384aa9dc..c2807ecb5290: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $ git shortlog -s 13cdd12a9f934158f4ec817cf048fcb4384aa9dc..c2807ecb5290 > > > > > > > 1 Christophe JAILLET > > > > > > > 2 Jessica Zhang > > > > > > > 5 Karol Wachowski > > > > > > > 1 Laura Nao > > > > > > > 27 Uwe Kleine-König > > > > > > > 1 Wang Jianzheng > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess this was done by mistake because nobody told me about dropping > > > > > > > my/these patches? Can c2807ecb5290 please be merged into drm-misc-next > > > > > > > again? > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it was probably a mistake that these patches got merged to > > > > > > linuxnext during the 4 days that you noticed. However, your patches > > > > > > aren't dropped and are still present in drm-misc-next. > > > > > > > > > > > > drm-misc has a bit of a unique model and it's documented fairly well here: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://drm.pages.freedesktop.org/maintainer-tools/drm-misc.html > > > > > > > > > > Is there a flaw then in this unique model (or its implementation) when > > > > > drm-misc/for-linux-next moves in a non-fast-forward manner? This isn't > > > > > expected, is it? > > > > > > > > There's no expectation afaik. Any tree merged in linux-next can be > > > > rebased, drop a patch, amend one, etc. without any concern. > > > > > > I agree that there are no rules broken for a tree that is included in > > > next and a maintainer is free to rewrite their tree independant of the > > > tree being included in next. > > > > > > Still I think that shouldn't be used as an excuse. > > > > As an excuse for what? > > Just because the rules for trees in next allow the merged branch to be > rewritten, shouldn't be used to justify rewriting the branch. > > IMHO you still should ensure that only commits make it into any next > snapshot via your tree before X-rc1 for some X (e.g. v6.5) that you > intend to be included in X-rc1. That's never been a next rule either. Rust support has been in next for almost a year without being sent as a PR for example. > > > For me, if a maintainer puts some patch into next that's a statement > > > saying (approximately) "I think this patch is fine and I intend to > > > send it to Linus during the next merge window.". > > > > I mean, that's what we're saying and doing? > > No, on 2023-06-09 I assumed that my patches will go into v6.5-rc1 (as it > was part of next-20230609). A few days later however the patches were > dropped. > > The two options that would have made the experience smoother for me are: > > a) keep c2807ecb5290 in next and send it for v6.5-rc1; or That's not an option. You were simply too late for v6.5-rc1, unless you expect us to get rid of timezones and work on week-ends. But surely you don't. > b) keep c2807ecb5290 in a branch that doesn't result it entering next > before v6.5-rc1. All the drm-misc committers use dim. If that's a concern for you, feel free to send a patch addressing this to dim. > > > So my expectation is that if a patch is dropped again from next, there > > > was a problem and it would be fair if the maintainer tells the > > > author/submitter about this problem and that the patch was dropped. > > > > But it wasn't dropped, > > From my POV it was dropped from next as it was part of next between > next-20230609 and next-20230615 but not any more since next-20230616. > You talk about (not) being dropped from some branch in drm-misc, that's > irrelevant for the thing I'm complaining about. You were never told that they were merged in linux-next, but in drm-misc-next. If they did, it's mostly an unfortunate artifact. We have a documentation that explains the process and how drm-misc-next works. If that's still confusing somehow, feel free to amend it to make it clearer. > > it's still very much to be sent to Linus during the next merge window. > > "next merge window" as in the one leading to 6.5-rc1? Either we mean > different things when we say "next merge window", or there is a > misunderstanding I don't see yet. Linus doesn't want to receive in a PR patches that haven't been in linux-next for at least two weeks. In most cases that's rc6, which means that by the time we send our last PR before rc6, the next-merge-window-while-still-meeting-Linus-requirements is 6.6. The rule applies to all trees, and it's why the soc tree also requires its submaintainers to submit their PR before -rc6. So yeah, sorry if it was confusing. At the end of the day, it's a compromise, and I can't find a better one for everyone involved (maintainers, contributors and committers alike) off the top of my head. Maxime