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.

quoted

quoted

quoted

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.  

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