Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@kernel.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        regressions@lists.linux.dev,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Closing down the wireless trees for a summer break?
In-Reply-To: <87y1kncuh4.fsf@kernel.org>
References: <87y1kncuh4.fsf@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 13 Jun 2023 20:14:40 +0200
Message-ID: <871qifxm9b.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> writes:

> Me and Johannes are planning to take a longer break from upstream this
> summer. To keep things simple my suggestion is that we would official
> close wireless and wireless-next trees from June 23rd to August 14th
> (approximately).
>
> During that time urgent fixes would need go directly to the net tree.
> Patches can keep flowing to the wireless list but the the net
> maintainers will follow the list and they'll just apply them to the
> net tree directly.
>
> The plan here is that -next patches would have to wait for
> wireless-next to open. Luckily the merge window for v6.6 most likely
> opens beginning of September[1] so after our break we would have few
> weeks to get -next patches ready for v6.6.
>
> And the v6.5 -next patches should be ready by Monday June 19th so that we
> have enough time to get them into the tree before we close the trees.
>
> What do people think, would this work? This is the first time we are
> doing this so we would like to hear any comments about this, both
> negative and positive. You can also reply to me and Johannes privately,
> if that's easier.

I think this sounds reasonable, and I applaud the effort to take some
time off during the summer :)

One question that comes to mind is how would this work for patchwork?
Would we keep using the wireless patchwork instance for the patches
going to -net in that period, or will there be some other process for
this? I realise the setup we have for ath9k is a bit special in this
regard with the ack-on-list+delegation, so I'm obviously mostly
interested in what to do about that... :)

-Toke