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

quoted

Example, of such shared repo:
BPF: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/
Bluetooth: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bluetooth/bluetooth-next.git/
RDMA: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rdma/rdma.git/

Most of these are high volume or vendor silo'd which is not the case here.