[U-Boot-Custodians] Branches other than "master" ?

[Eugen.Hristev at microchip.com]

On 27.08.2019 18:55, Daniel Schwierzeck wrote:

> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 5:39 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> While thinking about making use of the "next" branch of the main tree
>> more often, and perhaps similar to how linux-next is used, I was looking
>> at http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/CustodianGitTrees again.  This talks
>> about both "next" and "testing" branches.  Does anyone make use of
>> "next" or "testing" branches today?  If so, are they rebased, or not?  I
>> want to make sure that if I make any changes to a top-level branch name
>> policy it's consistent throughout and won't cause problems.  Thanks!
>>
> 
> I usually use a "next" branch for patches which missed the merge
> window or which are generally scheduled for the next release. If
> necessary due to dependencies, I ask submitters to rebase their series
> to that branch during the review process. And I regularily rebase the
> "next" branch to mainline (usually after you create new -rc tags).

I follow the same approach. I normally rebase them before sending a PR 
to make sure Tom doesn't have to do it.
The master branch I keep clean just in case some very urgent fix arrives 
and I can easily send a PR for it
I use much more often the "testing" branch. I have a travis & gitlab CI 
on it at all times. I push there whenever a new patch arrives, for 
reviewing and testing, before actually taking it. Since I have most 
boards on my desk I use it as a clean+patch tree to test it out.

> 
> To mimic linux-next, how about creating a Gitlab CI job to
> automatically merge "for-next" branches from all custodian trees on a
> daily schedule to detect merge conflicts or build errors early and
> before the merge window opens?
>