Quoting Jani Nikula (2020-11-13 11:56:58) > Switching from using drm-intel-next-queued to drm-intel-next requires a > flag-day change. This is the dim change to switch to drm-intel-next. For > now, keep the sub-command names such as "conq" and "push-queued", and > change everything under the hood. Prevent pushes to > drm-intel-next-queued. > > The flag-day change should be rolled with: > > 1) Bump minimum dim version with DIM_MIN_VERSION=1 in nightly.conf > > 2) Sync drm-intel-next-queued to drm-intel-next > > 3) Push this change to maintainer-tools > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com>
<SNIP> > @@ -1649,7 +1655,7 @@ function check_maintainer > branch=$1 > commit=$2 > > - if [ "$branch" = "drm-intel-next-queued" ]; then > + if [ "$branch" = "drm-intel-next" ]; then This reminded me that we're probably omitting quite a few checks now for drm-intel-gt-next, I wonder if wildcarding drm-intel*-next would make sense broader in the code? > +++ b/maintainer-drm-intel.rst > @@ -14,22 +14,22 @@ fixes for one release. Thus for each branch, you take > over from the person > maintaining the branch before you, and leave it in a known state for the > person > after you. > > -drm-intel-next-queued > ---------------------- > +drm-intel-next "drm-intel-next and drm-intel-gt-next"? I wonder what would be the best way to refer to the dual-branch model in documentation? Explicitly writing out is definitely needed for easier searching. The actual suggested changes look fine to me, the later improvements can be added on top: Acked-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com> Regards, Joonas _______________________________________________ dim-tools mailing list dim-tools@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dim-tools
