From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> Date: 2017-12-25 18:49:22
David Ahern has agreed to take over managing the net-next branch of iproute2.
The new location is:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dsahern/iproute2-next.git/
In the past, I have accepted new features into iproute2 master branch, but
am changing the policy so that outside of the merge window (up until -rc1)
new features will get put into net-next to get some more review and testing
time. This means that things like the proposed batch streaming mode will
go through net-next.
Thanks
Stephen Hemminger
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Date: 2017-12-26 04:47:48
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:49:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
David Ahern has agreed to take over managing the net-next branch of iproute2.
The new location is:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dsahern/iproute2-next.git/
In the past, I have accepted new features into iproute2 master branch, but
am changing the policy so that outside of the merge window (up until -rc1)
new features will get put into net-next to get some more review and testing
time. This means that things like the proposed batch streaming mode will
go through net-next.
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> Date: 2017-12-26 06:14:30
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:47:43 +0200
Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:49:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
David Ahern has agreed to take over managing the net-next branch of iproute2.
The new location is:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dsahern/iproute2-next.git/
In the past, I have accepted new features into iproute2 master branch, but
am changing the policy so that outside of the merge window (up until -rc1)
new features will get put into net-next to get some more review and testing
time. This means that things like the proposed batch streaming mode will
go through net-next.
Hi Stephen,
Did you consider to create one shared repo for the iproute2 to allow
multiple committers workflow?
For now having separate trees is best, there is no need for multiple
committers the load is very light.
It will be much convenient for the users to have one place for
master/stable/net-next branches, instead of actually following two
different repositories.
If you are doing network development, you already need to deal with
multiple repo's on the kernel side so there is no difference.
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org> Date: 2017-12-26 09:35:51
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:14:26PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:47:43 +0200
Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:49:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
David Ahern has agreed to take over managing the net-next branch of iproute2.
The new location is:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dsahern/iproute2-next.git/
In the past, I have accepted new features into iproute2 master branch, but
am changing the policy so that outside of the merge window (up until -rc1)
new features will get put into net-next to get some more review and testing
time. This means that things like the proposed batch streaming mode will
go through net-next.
Hi Stephen,
Did you consider to create one shared repo for the iproute2 to allow
multiple committers workflow?
For now having separate trees is best, there is no need for multiple
committers the load is very light.
quoted
It will be much convenient for the users to have one place for
master/stable/net-next branches, instead of actually following two
different repositories.
If you are doing network development, you already need to deal with
multiple repo's on the kernel side so there is no difference.
I agree with you that one extra "git remote add .." is not so huge and
all people who develop for the netdev will do it. My concern is about
Documentation and newcomers, who will have a hard time to find a right
tree.
Thanks
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Date: 2017-12-28 23:46:38
On 12/26/2017 10:35 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:14:26PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:47:43 +0200
Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:49:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
David Ahern has agreed to take over managing the net-next branch of iproute2.
The new location is:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dsahern/iproute2-next.git/
In the past, I have accepted new features into iproute2 master branch, but
am changing the policy so that outside of the merge window (up until -rc1)
new features will get put into net-next to get some more review and testing
time. This means that things like the proposed batch streaming mode will
go through net-next.
Did you consider to create one shared repo for the iproute2 to allow
multiple committers workflow?
For now having separate trees is best, there is no need for multiple
committers the load is very light.
quoted
It will be much convenient for the users to have one place for
master/stable/net-next branches, instead of actually following two
different repositories.
If you are doing network development, you already need to deal with
multiple repo's on the kernel side so there is no difference.
I agree with you that one extra "git remote add .." is not so huge and
all people who develop for the netdev will do it. My concern is about
Documentation and newcomers, who will have a hard time to find a right
tree.
I guess it would certainly help to identify the official repo to rebase
against much quicker if it would be under a common group on korg e.g.
* iproute2/iproute2.git - for current cycle
* iproute2/iproute2-next.git - for net-next bits
and also be in line with other tooling (ethtool and others), even if
not as high volume, but it would make it unambiguous right away from
the other, private iproute2 repos on korg, imho. Just a thought.
Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:46:31AM CET, daniel@iogearbox.net wrote:
On 12/26/2017 10:35 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:14:26PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:47:43 +0200
Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:49:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
David Ahern has agreed to take over managing the net-next branch of iproute2.
The new location is:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dsahern/iproute2-next.git/
In the past, I have accepted new features into iproute2 master branch, but
am changing the policy so that outside of the merge window (up until -rc1)
new features will get put into net-next to get some more review and testing
time. This means that things like the proposed batch streaming mode will
go through net-next.
Did you consider to create one shared repo for the iproute2 to allow
multiple committers workflow?
For now having separate trees is best, there is no need for multiple
committers the load is very light.
quoted
It will be much convenient for the users to have one place for
master/stable/net-next branches, instead of actually following two
different repositories.
If you are doing network development, you already need to deal with
multiple repo's on the kernel side so there is no difference.
I agree with you that one extra "git remote add .." is not so huge and
all people who develop for the netdev will do it. My concern is about
Documentation and newcomers, who will have a hard time to find a right
tree.
I guess it would certainly help to identify the official repo to rebase
against much quicker if it would be under a common group on korg e.g.
* iproute2/iproute2.git - for current cycle
* iproute2/iproute2-next.git - for net-next bits
and also be in line with other tooling (ethtool and others), even if
not as high volume, but it would make it unambiguous right away from
the other, private iproute2 repos on korg, imho. Just a thought.
+1
I was about to suggest this. This is nice opportunity to do such change.
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> Date: 2017-12-30 04:00:32
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:58:23 +0100
Jiri Pirko [off-list ref] wrote:
Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:46:31AM CET, daniel@iogearbox.net wrote:
quoted
On 12/26/2017 10:35 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:14:26PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:47:43 +0200
Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:49:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
David Ahern has agreed to take over managing the net-next branch of iproute2.
The new location is:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dsahern/iproute2-next.git/
In the past, I have accepted new features into iproute2 master branch, but
am changing the policy so that outside of the merge window (up until -rc1)
new features will get put into net-next to get some more review and testing
time. This means that things like the proposed batch streaming mode will
go through net-next.
Did you consider to create one shared repo for the iproute2 to allow
multiple committers workflow?
For now having separate trees is best, there is no need for multiple
committers the load is very light.
quoted
It will be much convenient for the users to have one place for
master/stable/net-next branches, instead of actually following two
different repositories.
If you are doing network development, you already need to deal with
multiple repo's on the kernel side so there is no difference.
I agree with you that one extra "git remote add .." is not so huge and
all people who develop for the netdev will do it. My concern is about
Documentation and newcomers, who will have a hard time to find a right
tree.
I guess it would certainly help to identify the official repo to rebase
against much quicker if it would be under a common group on korg e.g.
* iproute2/iproute2.git - for current cycle
* iproute2/iproute2-next.git - for net-next bits
and also be in line with other tooling (ethtool and others), even if
not as high volume, but it would make it unambiguous right away from
the other, private iproute2 repos on korg, imho. Just a thought.
+1
I was about to suggest this. This is nice opportunity to do such change.
Most of these are high volume or vendor silo'd which is not the case here.
Cheers,
Daniel
Good news
kup does support links so could make links from personal to iproute2 directory
Bad news
kup won't allow me to make iproute2 directory right now. Will have to wait for
Konstantin
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> Date: 2017-12-30 20:24:50
On 12/30/2017 05:00 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:58:23 +0100
Jiri Pirko [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:46:31AM CET, daniel@iogearbox.net wrote:
quoted
On 12/26/2017 10:35 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:14:26PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:47:43 +0200
Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:49:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
David Ahern has agreed to take over managing the net-next branch of iproute2.
The new location is:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dsahern/iproute2-next.git/
In the past, I have accepted new features into iproute2 master branch, but
am changing the policy so that outside of the merge window (up until -rc1)
new features will get put into net-next to get some more review and testing
time. This means that things like the proposed batch streaming mode will
go through net-next.
Did you consider to create one shared repo for the iproute2 to allow
multiple committers workflow?
For now having separate trees is best, there is no need for multiple
committers the load is very light.
quoted
It will be much convenient for the users to have one place for
master/stable/net-next branches, instead of actually following two
different repositories.
If you are doing network development, you already need to deal with
multiple repo's on the kernel side so there is no difference.
I agree with you that one extra "git remote add .." is not so huge and
all people who develop for the netdev will do it. My concern is about
Documentation and newcomers, who will have a hard time to find a right
tree.
I guess it would certainly help to identify the official repo to rebase
against much quicker if it would be under a common group on korg e.g.
* iproute2/iproute2.git - for current cycle
* iproute2/iproute2-next.git - for net-next bits
and also be in line with other tooling (ethtool and others), even if
not as high volume, but it would make it unambiguous right away from
the other, private iproute2 repos on korg, imho. Just a thought.
+1
I was about to suggest this. This is nice opportunity to do such change.
Most of these are high volume or vendor silo'd which is not the case here.
Cheers,
Daniel
Good news
kup does support links so could make links from personal to iproute2 directory
That's nice indeed!
Bad news
kup won't allow me to make iproute2 directory right now. Will have to wait for
Konstantin
Right, he also did set up the shared dir for bpf which was straight forward
though, so would be pretty much the same one-time procedure for iproute2.
Thanks,
Daniel
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 08:00:28PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:58:23 +0100
Jiri Pirko [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:46:31AM CET, daniel@iogearbox.net wrote:
quoted
On 12/26/2017 10:35 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:14:26PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:47:43 +0200
Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:49:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
David Ahern has agreed to take over managing the net-next branch of iproute2.
The new location is:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dsahern/iproute2-next.git/
In the past, I have accepted new features into iproute2 master branch, but
am changing the policy so that outside of the merge window (up until -rc1)
new features will get put into net-next to get some more review and testing
time. This means that things like the proposed batch streaming mode will
go through net-next.
Did you consider to create one shared repo for the iproute2 to allow
multiple committers workflow?
For now having separate trees is best, there is no need for multiple
committers the load is very light.
quoted
It will be much convenient for the users to have one place for
master/stable/net-next branches, instead of actually following two
different repositories.
If you are doing network development, you already need to deal with
multiple repo's on the kernel side so there is no difference.
I agree with you that one extra "git remote add .." is not so huge and
all people who develop for the netdev will do it. My concern is about
Documentation and newcomers, who will have a hard time to find a right
tree.
I guess it would certainly help to identify the official repo to rebase
against much quicker if it would be under a common group on korg e.g.
* iproute2/iproute2.git - for current cycle
* iproute2/iproute2-next.git - for net-next bits
and also be in line with other tooling (ethtool and others), even if
not as high volume, but it would make it unambiguous right away from
the other, private iproute2 repos on korg, imho. Just a thought.
+1
I was about to suggest this. This is nice opportunity to do such change.
Most of these are high volume or vendor silo'd which is not the case here.
Cheers,
Daniel
Good news
kup does support links so could make links from personal to iproute2 directory
Bad news
kup won't allow me to make iproute2 directory right now. Will have to wait for
Konstantin
Hi, any news on this? Not sure if Konstantin is back already or not.
Thanks,
Marcelo
From: David Ahern <hidden> Date: 2018-01-16 02:59:09
On 1/15/18 6:56 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 08:00:28PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:58:23 +0100
Jiri Pirko [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:46:31AM CET, daniel@iogearbox.net wrote:
quoted
On 12/26/2017 10:35 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:14:26PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:47:43 +0200
Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:49:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
David Ahern has agreed to take over managing the net-next branch of iproute2.
The new location is:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dsahern/iproute2-next.git/
In the past, I have accepted new features into iproute2 master branch, but
am changing the policy so that outside of the merge window (up until -rc1)
new features will get put into net-next to get some more review and testing
time. This means that things like the proposed batch streaming mode will
go through net-next.
Did you consider to create one shared repo for the iproute2 to allow
multiple committers workflow?
For now having separate trees is best, there is no need for multiple
committers the load is very light.
quoted
It will be much convenient for the users to have one place for
master/stable/net-next branches, instead of actually following two
different repositories.
If you are doing network development, you already need to deal with
multiple repo's on the kernel side so there is no difference.
I agree with you that one extra "git remote add .." is not so huge and
all people who develop for the netdev will do it. My concern is about
Documentation and newcomers, who will have a hard time to find a right
tree.
I guess it would certainly help to identify the official repo to rebase
against much quicker if it would be under a common group on korg e.g.
* iproute2/iproute2.git - for current cycle
* iproute2/iproute2-next.git - for net-next bits
and also be in line with other tooling (ethtool and others), even if
not as high volume, but it would make it unambiguous right away from
the other, private iproute2 repos on korg, imho. Just a thought.
+1
I was about to suggest this. This is nice opportunity to do such change.
Most of these are high volume or vendor silo'd which is not the case here.
Cheers,
Daniel
Good news
kup does support links so could make links from personal to iproute2 directory
Bad news
kup won't allow me to make iproute2 directory right now. Will have to wait for
Konstantin
Hi, any news on this? Not sure if Konstantin is back already or not.
From: Jakub Kicinski <hidden> Date: 2018-01-16 03:29:30
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 19:59:05 -0700, David Ahern wrote:
On 1/15/18 6:56 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 08:00:28PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:58:23 +0100
Jiri Pirko [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:46:31AM CET, daniel@iogearbox.net wrote:
quoted
On 12/26/2017 10:35 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:14:26PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 06:47:43 +0200
Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:49:19AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted
David Ahern has agreed to take over managing the net-next branch of iproute2.
The new location is:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dsahern/iproute2-next.git/
In the past, I have accepted new features into iproute2 master branch, but
am changing the policy so that outside of the merge window (up until -rc1)
new features will get put into net-next to get some more review and testing
time. This means that things like the proposed batch streaming mode will
go through net-next.
Did you consider to create one shared repo for the iproute2 to allow
multiple committers workflow?
For now having separate trees is best, there is no need for multiple
committers the load is very light.
quoted
It will be much convenient for the users to have one place for
master/stable/net-next branches, instead of actually following two
different repositories.
If you are doing network development, you already need to deal with
multiple repo's on the kernel side so there is no difference.
I agree with you that one extra "git remote add .." is not so huge and
all people who develop for the netdev will do it. My concern is about
Documentation and newcomers, who will have a hard time to find a right
tree.
I guess it would certainly help to identify the official repo to rebase
against much quicker if it would be under a common group on korg e.g.
* iproute2/iproute2.git - for current cycle
* iproute2/iproute2-next.git - for net-next bits
and also be in line with other tooling (ethtool and others), even if
not as high volume, but it would make it unambiguous right away from
the other, private iproute2 repos on korg, imho. Just a thought.
+1
I was about to suggest this. This is nice opportunity to do such change.
Most of these are high volume or vendor silo'd which is not the case here.
Cheers,
Daniel
Good news
kup does support links so could make links from personal to iproute2 directory
Bad news
kup won't allow me to make iproute2 directory right now. Will have to wait for
Konstantin
Hi, any news on this? Not sure if Konstantin is back already or not.
About the branches - what should we base our patches on for net-next?
Most -next repos just use the master, but it seems that in case of
iproute2-next.git the net-next branch is still active, and there is
an inactive net-next branch in iproute2.git.. Is this transitional or
will it stay this way?
About the branches - what should we base our patches on for net-next?
Most -next repos just use the master, but it seems that in case of
iproute2-next.git the net-next branch is still active, and there is
an inactive net-next branch in iproute2.git.. Is this transitional or
will it stay this way?
good point. I'll make the current net-next branch in iproute2-next to
master.
From: David Ahern <hidden> Date: 2018-01-22 16:07:27
On 1/15/18 8:29 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
About the branches - what should we base our patches on for net-next?
Most -next repos just use the master, but it seems that in case of
iproute2-next.git the net-next branch is still active, and there is
an inactive net-next branch in iproute2.git.. Is this transitional or
will it stay this way?
The master branch for iproute2-next tree has been updated to be the
branch for -next patches and the net-next branch has been deleted.