On Sat, 06 Sep 2025, Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 6 Sept 2025 at 11:50, Konstantin Ryabitsev > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The primary consumer of this are the CI systems, though, like those that plug >> into patchwork > > Yes, for a CI, it makes sense to try to have a fixed base, if such a > base exists. > > But for that case, when a base exists and is published, why aren't > those people and tools *actually* using git then? That gets rid of all > the strangeness - and inefficiency - of trying to recreate it from > emails. > > So I'd rather encourage people to have git branches that they expose, > if CI is the main use case.
For i915 and xe, we'll want *all* patches go through CI. I'm sure there are other drivers like that. CI is not the "main" use case, just one use case. I'd like to have patches on the list for review and discussion, and git branches for CI and everything else. Insert "Both? Both. Both. Both Is Good." meme here. To me it sounds like it would be useful to have tooling (b4? git send-email?) that could push a git branch *and* send those changes as a patch series, with a well-formed, machine-readable part in the cover letter that points at the git repo. I guess you could have server git hooks or forge workflows to send the patches as well. (Though you still can't review what's on the list, and blindly apply what's in the git repo.) BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
