Maintaining Git trees: Difference between revisions

From LinuxTVWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with '1. KERNEL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES FOR UPSTREAM ============================================= Before starting with the RFC, it is important that people understand how upstream dev...')
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
'''WARNING:''' This document is currently an RFC
1. KERNEL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES FOR UPSTREAM
=============================================


== KERNEL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES FOR UPSTREAM ==
Before starting with the RFC, it is important that people understand how upstream
development works.


It is important that people understand how upstream development works.
Kernel development has 2 phases:


Kernel development has 2 phases:
1) a merge window typically with 2 weeks (although Linus is gave some
indications that he may reduce it on 2.6.34), starting with the release
of a new kernel version;


*1) a merge window typically with 2 weeks (although Linus is gave some indications that he may reduce it on 2.6.34), starting with the release of a new kernel version;
2) the -rc period, where the Kernel is tested and receive fixes.


The length of the -rc period depends on the number and relevance of the fixes. Considering
*2) the -rc period, where the Kernel is tested and receive fixes.

the recent history, it ranges from -rc6 to -rc8, where each -rc takes one week.
The length of the -rc period depends on the number and relevance of the fixes. Considering the recent history, it ranges from -rc6 to -rc8, where each -rc takes one week.


Those are the latest -rc kernels since 2.6.12:
Those are the latest -rc kernels since 2.6.12:
Line 39: Line 36:
2.6.32-rc8
2.6.32-rc8


In general, the announcement of a new -rc kernel gives some hints when that -rc kernel
In general, the announcement of a new -rc kernel gives some hints when that -rc kernel may be the last one.
may be the last one.


The required procedure, on subsystem trees is that:
The required procedure, on subsystem trees is that:


a) During -rc period (e.g. latest main kernel available is 2.6.x, the latest -rc kernel
a) During -rc period (e.g. latest main kernel available is 2.6.x, the latest -rc kernel is 2.6.[x+1]-rc<y>):
is 2.6.[x+1]-rc<y>):


- fix patches for the -rc kernel (2.6.[x+1]) should be sent upstream,
* fix patches for the -rc kernel (2.6.[x+1]) should be sent upstream, being a good idea to send them for some time at linux-next tree, allowing other people to test it, and check for potential conflicts with the other arch's;
* patches for 2.6.[x+2] should be sent to linux-next.
being a good idea to send them for some time at linux-next tree, allowing other
people to test it, and check for potential conflicts with the other arch's;

- patches for 2.6.[x+2] should be sent to linux-next.


b) the release of 2.6.[x+1] kernel:
b) the release of 2.6.[x+1] kernel:

- closes the -rc period and starts the merge window.
* closes the -rc period and starts the merge window.


c) During the merge window:
c) During the merge window:


- the patch that were added on linux-next during the -rc period
* the patch that were added on linux-next during the -rc period for 2.6.[x+2] should be sent upstream;
* new non-fix patches should be hold until the next -rc period starts, so, they'll be added on 2.6.[x+3];
for 2.6.[x+2] should be sent upstream;
* fix patches for 2.6.[x+2] should go to linux-next, wait for a few days and then send upstream.


d) the release of 2.6.[x+2]-rc1 kernel:
- new non-fix patches should be hold until the next -rc period starts,
so, they'll be added on 2.6.[x+3];


* the merge window has closed. No new features are allowed.
- fix patches for 2.6.[x+2] should go to linux-next, wait for a few days
* the patches with new features that arrived during the merge window will be moved to linux-next
and then send upstream.

d) the release of 2.6.[x+2]-rc1 kernel:


So, in other words, as currently x=32, and we are at the -rc period, being that the latest stable kernel is 2.6.32 and the latest -rc kernel 2.6.33-rc5, we are receiving patches for new features that will be available on kernel 2.6.34. After the release of 2.6.33, new features we receive will be added on 2.6.35.
- the merge window has closed. No new features are allowed.


In other words, the features being developed are always meant to be included on the next 2 kernels.
- the patches with new features that arrived during the merge window will
be moved to linux-next


In the specific case of new drivers that don't touch on existing features, it could be possible to send it during the -rc period, but it is safer to assume that those drivers should follow the above procedure, as a later submission may be nacked.
So, in other words, as currently x=32, and we are at the -rc period, being that
the latest stable kernel is 2.6.32 and the latest -rc kernel 2.6.33-rc5, we are receiving
patches for new features that will be available on kernel 2.6.34. After the release
of 2.6.33, new features we receive will be added on 2.6.35.


Sometimes, a fix patch corrects a problem that happens also on stable kernels (e. g. on kernel 2.6.x or even 2.6.y, where y < x). In this case, the patch should be sent to stable@kernel.org, in order to be added on stable kernels.
So, we're always developing features that will be there on the next 2 kernels.


In the specific case of new drivers that don't touch on existing features, it could
In the case of git-submitted patches with fixes, that also need to be send to stable, all the developer needs to do is to add:
CC: stable.kernel.org
be possible to send it during the -rc period, but it is safer to assume that those
drivers should follow the above procedure, as a later submission may be nacked.


At the patch description. At the moment the patch reaches upstream, a copy of the patch will be automatically be sent to the stable maintainer.
Sometimes, a fix patch corrects a problem that happens also on stable kernels (e. g.
on kernel 2.6.x or even 2.6.y, where y < x). In this case, the patch should be sent to
stable@kernel.org, in order to be added on stable kernels.


2. KERNEL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES FOR V4L/DVB
== KERNEL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES FOR V4L/DVB ==
============================================


That's the RFC on how we should work with -git.
That's the RFC on how we should work with -git.
Line 96: Line 79:
1) fixes and linux-next patches
1) fixes and linux-next patches


One of the big problems of our model is that we're using just one tree/branch for everything,
One of the big problems of our model is that we're using just one tree/branch for everything, with mercurial. This makes hard to send some fix patches for 2.6.[x+1], as they may have conflicts with the patches for 2.6.[x+2]. So, when the conflict is simple to solve, the patch is sent as fixes. Otherwise, it generally is hold to the next cycle. The fix patches should be tagged by the developer with "Priority: high" on mercurial.
with mercurial. This makes hard to send some fix patches for 2.6.[x+1], as they may have conflicts
with the patches for 2.6.[x+2]. So, when the conflict is simple to solve, the patch is sent as
fixes. Otherwise, it generally is hold to the next cycle. The fix patches should be tagged by the
developer with "Priority: high" on mercurial.


Unfortunately, sometimes people mark the driver with the wrong tag. For example, I merged yesterday
Unfortunately, sometimes people mark the driver with the wrong tag. For example, I merged on Jan, 22 a patch marked with "high" that doesn't apply at the fixes tree. This patch fix a regression introduced
a patch marked with "high" that doesn't apply at the fixes tree. This patch fix a regression introduced
by a driver that weren't merged yet, so, the patch were added as normal patch.
by a driver that weren't merged yet, so, the patch were added as normal patch.


How to solve those issues?
==== How to solve those issues? ====


Well, basically, we should work with more than one tree (or branch), on upstream submission:
Well, basically, we should work with more than one tree (or branch), on upstream submission:
a tree/branch with the fix patches;
* a tree/branch with the fix patches;
a tree/branch with the new feature patches.
* a tree/branch with the new feature patches.


So, the idea is that we'll use those two -git trees:
So, the idea is that we'll use those two -git trees:
http://linuxtv.org/git//v4l-dvb.git - Patches for linux-next
* http://linuxtv.org/git//v4l-dvb.git - Patches for linux-next
http://linuxtv.org/git//fixes.git - Patches for upstream
* http://linuxtv.org/git//fixes.git - Patches for upstream
While we'll keep accepting patches via -hg, due to the merge conflicts its mentioned, the better is that,
While we'll keep accepting patches via -hg, due to the merge conflicts its mentioned, the better is that, even those developers that prefer to develop patches use the old way, to send us the fixes via -git. This way, if is there a conflict, he is the one that can better solve it. Also, it avoids the risk of a patch being wrongly tagged.
even those developers that prefer to develop patches use the old way, to send us the fixes via -git.
This way, if is there a conflict, he is the one that can better solve it. Also, it avoids the risk of
a patch being wrongly tagged.


Also, after having a patch added on one of the above trees, we can't simply remove it, as others will
Also, after having a patch added on one of the above trees, we can't simply remove it, as others will be cloning that tree. So, the only option would be to send a revert patch, causing the patch history to be dirty and could be resulting on some troubles when submitting upstream. I've seen some nacks on receiving patches upstream from dirty git trees. So, we should really avoid this.
be cloning that tree. So, the only option would be to send a revert patch, causing the patch history
to be dirty and could be resulting on some troubles when submitting upstream. I've seen some nacks on
receiving patches upstream from dirty git trees. So, we should really avoid this.


2) how to submit a -git pull request
2) how to submit a -git pull request


As the same git tree may have more than one branch, and we'll have 2 -git trees for upstream, it is required
As the same git tree may have more than one branch, and we'll have 2 -git trees for upstream, it is required that people specify what should be done. Internally, my workflow is based on different mail queues for each type of requesting I receive. I have some scripts here to automate the proccess, so it is important that everyone sends me -git pull requests at the same way.
that people specify what should be done. Internally, my workflow is based on different mail queues for
each type of requesting I receive. I have some scripts here to automate the proccess, so it is important
that everyone sends me -git pull requests at the same way.


So, I'm basically proposing that a -git pull request to be send with the following email tags:
So, I'm basically proposing that a -git pull request to be send with the following email tags:


From: <your real email>
From: <your real email>
Subject: [GIT FIX FOR 2.6.33] Fixes for driver cx88
Subject: [GIT FIX FOR 2.6.33] Fixes for driver cx88
To: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
To: linux-media@vger.kernel.org


The from line may later be used by the git mailbomb script to send you a copy when the patch were committed,
The from line may later be used by the git mailbomb script to send you a copy when the patch were committed, so it should be your real email.
so it should be your real email.


The indication between [] on the subject will be handled by my mailer to put the request at the right
The indication between [] on the subject will be handled by my mailer to put the request at the right queue. So, if tagged wrong, it may not be committed.
queue. So, if tagged wrong, it may not be committed.


Don't send a copy of the pull to my addresses. I'll be filtering based on the subject and on the mailing list.
Don't send a copy of the pull to my addresses. I'll be filtering based on the subject and on the mailing list. If you send a c/c to me, it will be simply discarded.
If you send a c/c to me, it will be simply discarded.


NEVER send a copy of any pull request to a subscribers-only mailing list. Everyone is free to answer to the
NEVER send a copy of any pull request to a subscribers-only mailing list. Everyone is free to answer to the email, reviewing your patches. Don't penalty people that wants to contribute with you with SPAM bouncing emails, produced by subscribers only lists.
email, reviewing your patches. Don't penalty people that wants to contribute with you with SPAM bouncing emails,
produced by subscribers only lists.


When a patch touches on other subsystem codes, please copy the other subsystem maintainers. This is important
When a patch touches on other subsystem codes, please copy the other subsystem maintainers. This is important for patches that touches on arch files, and also for -alsa non-trivial patches.
for patches that touches on arch files, and also for -alsa non-trivial patches.


The email should be generated with the usage of git request-pull:
The email should be generated with the usage of git request-pull:
Line 160: Line 123:
where $ORIGIN is the commit hash of the tree before your patches, and $URL is the URL for your repository.
where $ORIGIN is the commit hash of the tree before your patches, and $URL is the URL for your repository.


For example, for the patches merged directly from -hg on my -git trees on Jan, 22 2010,
For example, for the patches merged directly from -hg on my -git trees on Jan, 22 2010, the above commands will produce:
the above commands will produce:


The following changes since commit 2f52713ab3cb9af2eb0f9354dba1421d1497f3e7:
The following changes since commit 2f52713ab3cb9af2eb0f9354dba1421d1497f3e7:
Line 243: Line 205:
create mode 100644 drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-alsa.h
create mode 100644 drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-alsa.h


This helps to identify what's expected to be found at the -git tree and to double check if the merge happened fine.

This helps to identify what's expected to be found at the -git tree and to double
check if the merge happened fine.


3) Tags that a patch receive after its submission
3) Tags that a patch receive after its submission
Line 251: Line 211:
This is probably the most complex issue to solve. So, I'd like to see some suggestions here.
This is probably the most complex issue to solve. So, I'd like to see some suggestions here.


Signed-off-by/Acked-by/Tested-by/Nacked-by tags may be received after a patch or a -git
Signed-off-by/Acked-by/Tested-by/Nacked-by tags may be received after a patch or a -git submission. This can happen even while the patch is being tested at linux-next, from people reporting problems on the existing patches, or reporting that a patch worked fine.
submission. This can happen even while the patch is being tested at linux-next, from
people reporting problems on the existing patches, or reporting that a patch worked fine.


Also, the driver maintainer and the subsystem maintainer that is committing those patches
Also, the driver maintainer and the subsystem maintainer that is committing those patches should sign each one, to indicate that he reviewed and has accepted the patch.
should sign each one, to indicate that he reviewed and has accepted the patch.


Currently, if a new tag is added to a committed patch, its hash will change. I saw some
Currently, if a new tag is added to a committed patch, its hash will change. I saw some discussions about allowing adding new tags on -git without changing the hash, but I think this weren't implemented (yet?).
discussions about allowing adding new tags on -git without changing the hash, but I think
this weren't implemented (yet?).


The same problem occurs with -hg, but, as -hg doesn't support multiple branches (well, it
The same problem occurs with -hg, but, as -hg doesn't support multiple branches (well, it has a "branch" command, but the concept of branch there is different), it was opted that the -hg trees won't have all the needed SOBs. Instead, those would be added only at the submission tree.
has a "branch" command, but the concept of branch there is different), it was opted that
the -hg trees won't have all the needed SOBs. Instead, those would be added only at the
submission tree.


With -git, a better procedure can be used:
With -git, a better procedure can be used:


The developer may have two separate branches on his tree. For example, let's assume that the
The developer may have two separate branches on his tree. For example, let's assume that the developer has the following branches on his tree:
* media-master (associated with "linuxtv" remote)
developer has the following branches on his tree:
* fixes
- media-master (associated with "linuxtv" remote)
* devel
- fixes
- devel


His development happens on devel branch. When the patches are ready to submission will be
His development happens on devel branch. When the patches are ready to submission will be copied into a new for_submission branch:
copied into a new for_submission branch:
git branch for_submission devel
git branch for_submission devel


Line 283: Line 233:
Eventually, he'll write new patches on his devel branch.
Eventually, he'll write new patches on his devel branch.


After merged, the developer updates the linuxtv remote and drops the for_submission branch.
After merged, the developer updates the linuxtv remote and drops the for_submission branch. This way, "media-master" will contain his patches that got a new hash, due to the maintainer's SOB. However, he has some new patches on his devel, that applies over the old hashes.
This way, "media-master" will contain his patches that got a new hash, due to the maintainer's
SOB. However, he has some new patches on his devel, that applies over the old hashes.


Fortunately, git has a special command to automatically remove the old objects: git rebase.
Fortunately, git has a special command to automatically remove the old objects: git rebase.
Line 295: Line 243:
git rebase media-master # to remove the legacy hashes
git rebase media-master # to remove the legacy hashes


After this, his development branch will contain only upstream patches + the new ones he added
After this, his development branch will contain only upstream patches + the new ones he added after sending the patches for upstream submission.
after sending the patches for upstream submission.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Revision as of 15:23, 23 January 2010

WARNING: This document is currently an RFC

KERNEL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES FOR UPSTREAM

It is important that people understand how upstream development works.

Kernel development has 2 phases:

  • 1) a merge window typically with 2 weeks (although Linus is gave some indications that he may reduce it on 2.6.34), starting with the release of a new kernel version;
  • 2) the -rc period, where the Kernel is tested and receive fixes.

The length of the -rc period depends on the number and relevance of the fixes. Considering the recent history, it ranges from -rc6 to -rc8, where each -rc takes one week.

Those are the latest -rc kernels since 2.6.12: 2.6.12-rc6 2.6.13-rc7 2.6.14-rc5 2.6.15-rc7 2.6.16-rc6 2.6.17-rc6 2.6.18-rc7 2.6.19-rc6 2.6.20-rc7 2.6.21-rc7 2.6.22-rc7 2.6.23-rc9 2.6.24-rc8 2.6.25-rc9 2.6.26-rc9 2.6.27-rc9 2.6.28-rc9 2.6.29-rc8 2.6.30-rc8 2.6.31-rc9 2.6.32-rc8

In general, the announcement of a new -rc kernel gives some hints when that -rc kernel may be the last one.

The required procedure, on subsystem trees is that:

a) During -rc period (e.g. latest main kernel available is 2.6.x, the latest -rc kernel is 2.6.[x+1]-rc<y>):

  • fix patches for the -rc kernel (2.6.[x+1]) should be sent upstream, being a good idea to send them for some time at linux-next tree, allowing other people to test it, and check for potential conflicts with the other arch's;
  • patches for 2.6.[x+2] should be sent to linux-next.

b) the release of 2.6.[x+1] kernel:

  • closes the -rc period and starts the merge window.

c) During the merge window:

  • the patch that were added on linux-next during the -rc period for 2.6.[x+2] should be sent upstream;
  • new non-fix patches should be hold until the next -rc period starts, so, they'll be added on 2.6.[x+3];
  • fix patches for 2.6.[x+2] should go to linux-next, wait for a few days and then send upstream.

d) the release of 2.6.[x+2]-rc1 kernel:

  • the merge window has closed. No new features are allowed.
  • the patches with new features that arrived during the merge window will be moved to linux-next

So, in other words, as currently x=32, and we are at the -rc period, being that the latest stable kernel is 2.6.32 and the latest -rc kernel 2.6.33-rc5, we are receiving patches for new features that will be available on kernel 2.6.34. After the release of 2.6.33, new features we receive will be added on 2.6.35.

In other words, the features being developed are always meant to be included on the next 2 kernels.

In the specific case of new drivers that don't touch on existing features, it could be possible to send it during the -rc period, but it is safer to assume that those drivers should follow the above procedure, as a later submission may be nacked.

Sometimes, a fix patch corrects a problem that happens also on stable kernels (e. g. on kernel 2.6.x or even 2.6.y, where y < x). In this case, the patch should be sent to stable@kernel.org, in order to be added on stable kernels.

In the case of git-submitted patches with fixes, that also need to be send to stable, all the developer needs to do is to add: 

 CC: stable.kernel.org

At the patch description. At the moment the patch reaches upstream, a copy of the patch will be automatically be sent to the stable maintainer.

KERNEL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES FOR V4L/DVB

That's the RFC on how we should work with -git.

1) fixes and linux-next patches

One of the big problems of our model is that we're using just one tree/branch for everything, with mercurial. This makes hard to send some fix patches for 2.6.[x+1], as they may have conflicts with the patches for 2.6.[x+2]. So, when the conflict is simple to solve, the patch is sent as fixes. Otherwise, it generally is hold to the next cycle. The fix patches should be tagged by the developer with "Priority: high" on mercurial.

Unfortunately, sometimes people mark the driver with the wrong tag. For example, I merged on Jan, 22 a patch marked with "high" that doesn't apply at the fixes tree. This patch fix a regression introduced by a driver that weren't merged yet, so, the patch were added as normal patch.

How to solve those issues?

Well, basically, we should work with more than one tree (or branch), on upstream submission:

  • a tree/branch with the fix patches;
  • a tree/branch with the new feature patches.

So, the idea is that we'll use those two -git trees:

While we'll keep accepting patches via -hg, due to the merge conflicts its mentioned, the better is that, even those developers that prefer to develop patches use the old way, to send us the fixes via -git. This way, if is there a conflict, he is the one that can better solve it. Also, it avoids the risk of a patch being wrongly tagged.

Also, after having a patch added on one of the above trees, we can't simply remove it, as others will be cloning that tree. So, the only option would be to send a revert patch, causing the patch history to be dirty and could be resulting on some troubles when submitting upstream. I've seen some nacks on receiving patches upstream from dirty git trees. So, we should really avoid this.

2) how to submit a -git pull request

As the same git tree may have more than one branch, and we'll have 2 -git trees for upstream, it is required that people specify what should be done. Internally, my workflow is based on different mail queues for each type of requesting I receive. I have some scripts here to automate the proccess, so it is important that everyone sends me -git pull requests at the same way.

So, I'm basically proposing that a -git pull request to be send with the following email tags: 

 From: <your real email>
 Subject: [GIT FIX FOR 2.6.33] Fixes for driver cx88
 To: linux-media@vger.kernel.org

The from line may later be used by the git mailbomb script to send you a copy when the patch were committed, so it should be your real email.

The indication between [] on the subject will be handled by my mailer to put the request at the right queue. So, if tagged wrong, it may not be committed.

Don't send a copy of the pull to my addresses. I'll be filtering based on the subject and on the mailing list. If you send a c/c to me, it will be simply discarded.

NEVER send a copy of any pull request to a subscribers-only mailing list. Everyone is free to answer to the email, reviewing your patches. Don't penalty people that wants to contribute with you with SPAM bouncing emails, produced by subscribers only lists.

When a patch touches on other subsystem codes, please copy the other subsystem maintainers. This is important for patches that touches on arch files, and also for -alsa non-trivial patches.

The email should be generated with the usage of git request-pull: 

      git request-pull $ORIGIN $URL

where $ORIGIN is the commit hash of the tree before your patches, and $URL is the URL for your repository.

For example, for the patches merged directly from -hg on my -git trees on Jan, 22 2010, the above commands will produce: 

 The following changes since commit 2f52713ab3cb9af2eb0f9354dba1421d1497f3e7:
   Abylay Ospan (1):
         V4L/DVB: 22-kHz set_tone fix for NetUP Dual DVB-S2-CI card. 22kHz logic controlled by demod
 
 are available in the git repository at:
 
   git://linuxtv.org/v4l-dvb.git master
 
 Andy Walls (4):
       V4L/DVB: cx25840, v4l2-subdev, ivtv, pvrusb2: Fix ivtv/cx25840 tinny audio
       V4L/DVB: ivtv: Adjust msleep() delays used to prevent tinny audio and PCI bus hang
       V4L/DVB: cx18-alsa: Initial non-working cx18-alsa files
       V4L/DVB: cx18-alsa: Add non-working cx18-alsa-pcm.[ch] files to avoid data loss
 
 Devin Heitmueller (20):
       V4L/DVB: xc3028: fix regression in firmware loading time
       V4L/DVB: cx18: rename cx18-alsa.c
       V4L/DVB: cx18: make it so cx18-alsa-main.c compiles
       V4L/DVB: cx18: export a couple of symbols so they can be shared with cx18-alsa
       V4L/DVB: cx18: overhaul ALSA PCM device handling so it works
       V4L/DVB: cx18: add cx18-alsa module to Makefile
       V4L/DVB: cx18: export more symbols required by cx18-alsa
       V4L/DVB: cx18-alsa: remove unneeded debug line
       V4L/DVB: cx18: rework cx18-alsa module loading to support automatic loading
       V4L/DVB: cx18: cleanup cx18-alsa debug logging
       V4L/DVB: cx18-alsa: name alsa device after the actual card
       V4L/DVB: cx18-alsa: remove a couple of warnings
       V4L/DVB: cx18-alsa: fix memory leak in error condition
       V4L/DVB: cx18-alsa: fix codingstyle issue
       V4L/DVB: cx18-alsa: codingstyle fixes
       V4L/DVB: cx18: codingstyle fixes
       V4L/DVB: cx18-alsa: codingstyle cleanup
       V4L/DVB: cx18-alsa: codingstyle cleanup
       V4L/DVB: cx18: address possible passing of NULL to snd_card_free
       V4L/DVB: cx18-alsa: Fix the rates definition and move some buffer freeing code.
 
 Ian Armstrong (1):
       V4L/DVB: ivtv: Fix race condition for queued udma transfers
 
 Igor M. Liplianin (4):
       V4L/DVB: Add Support for DVBWorld DVB-S2 PCI 2004D card
       V4L/DVB: dm1105: connect splitted else-if statements
       V4L/DVB: dm1105: use dm1105_dev & dev instead of dm1105dvb
       V4L/DVB: dm1105: use macro for read/write registers
 
 JD Louw (1):
       V4L/DVB: Compro S350 GPIO change
 
  drivers/media/common/tuners/tuner-xc2028.c  |   11 +-
  drivers/media/dvb/dm1105/Kconfig            |    1 +
  drivers/media/dvb/dm1105/dm1105.c           |  501 ++++++++++++++-------------
  drivers/media/video/cx18/Kconfig            |   11 +
  drivers/media/video/cx18/Makefile           |    2 +
  drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-alsa-main.c   |  293 ++++++++++++++++
  drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-alsa-mixer.c  |  191 ++++++++++
  drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-alsa-mixer.h  |   23 ++
  drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-alsa-pcm.c    |  353 +++++++++++++++++++
  drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-alsa-pcm.h    |   27 ++
  drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-alsa.h        |   59 ++++
  drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-driver.c      |   40 ++-
  drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-driver.h      |   10 +
  drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-fileops.c     |    6 +-
  drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-fileops.h     |    3 +
  drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-mailbox.c     |   46 +++-
  drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-streams.c     |    2 +
  drivers/media/video/cx25840/cx25840-core.c  |   48 ++-
  drivers/media/video/ivtv/ivtv-irq.c         |    5 +-
  drivers/media/video/ivtv/ivtv-streams.c     |    6 +-
  drivers/media/video/ivtv/ivtv-udma.c        |    1 +
  drivers/media/video/pvrusb2/pvrusb2-hdw.c   |    1 +
  drivers/media/video/saa7134/saa7134-cards.c |    4 +-
  include/media/v4l2-subdev.h                 |    1 +
  24 files changed, 1380 insertions(+), 265 deletions(-)
  create mode 100644 drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-alsa-main.c
  create mode 100644 drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-alsa-mixer.c
  create mode 100644 drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-alsa-mixer.h
  create mode 100644 drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-alsa-pcm.c
  create mode 100644 drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-alsa-pcm.h
  create mode 100644 drivers/media/video/cx18/cx18-alsa.h

This helps to identify what's expected to be found at the -git tree and to double check if the merge happened fine.

3) Tags that a patch receive after its submission

This is probably the most complex issue to solve. So, I'd like to see some suggestions here.

Signed-off-by/Acked-by/Tested-by/Nacked-by tags may be received after a patch or a -git submission. This can happen even while the patch is being tested at linux-next, from people reporting problems on the existing patches, or reporting that a patch worked fine.

Also, the driver maintainer and the subsystem maintainer that is committing those patches should sign each one, to indicate that he reviewed and has accepted the patch.

Currently, if a new tag is added to a committed patch, its hash will change. I saw some discussions about allowing adding new tags on -git without changing the hash, but I think this weren't implemented (yet?).

The same problem occurs with -hg, but, as -hg doesn't support multiple branches (well, it has a "branch" command, but the concept of branch there is different), it was opted that the -hg trees won't have all the needed SOBs. Instead, those would be added only at the submission tree.

With -git, a better procedure can be used:

The developer may have two separate branches on his tree. For example, let's assume that the developer has the following branches on his tree:

  • media-master (associated with "linuxtv" remote)
  • fixes
  • devel

His development happens on devel branch. When the patches are ready to submission will be copied into a new for_submission branch: git branch for_submission devel

And a pull request from the branch "for_submission" will be sent.

Eventually, he'll write new patches on his devel branch.

After merged, the developer updates the linuxtv remote and drops the for_submission branch. This way, "media-master" will contain his patches that got a new hash, due to the maintainer's SOB. However, he has some new patches on his devel, that applies over the old hashes.

Fortunately, git has a special command to automatically remove the old objects: git rebase.

All the developer needs to do is: git remote update # to update his remotes, including "linuxtv" git checkout devel # move to devel branch git pull . media-master # to make a recursive merge from v4l/dvb upstream git rebase media-master # to remove the legacy hashes

After this, his development branch will contain only upstream patches + the new ones he added after sending the patches for upstream submission.

Retrieved from "https://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php?title=Maintaining_Git_trees&oldid=26539"