Which tree to track: linux-next or staging?

[Jonathan Bergh]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 09:56:06AM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 03:49:15PM +0100, Jonathan Bergh wrote:
> > I have had the opportunity to submit a few patches, which has been
> > really fun. However, a while back i submitted patches for fixes that i
> > realised after had already been patched in GregKH tree ... and i
> > realised i had been developing against Linus's master branch, and not
> > linux-next.
> > 
> > But my question is, is it better to develop against linux-next or in
> > newbies cases, one of GregKH's (staging) branches? Maybe
> > staging/master or staging/staging-next?
> 
> There is no hard and fast rule about it, but in general:
> 
> - if you are closely working with a particular subsystem, the best course of
>   action is to develop against the indicated tree/branch (e.g. see T: entries
>   in the MAINTAINERS file); you should rebase your series to the latest before
>   sending it off to the maintainer
> - if you are an occasional contributor, you should use either the latest next
>   tag for submitting your patches, or the latest mainline tag
> - if you are sending a one-off patch, basing it off of the latest mainline tag
>   is just fine

Got it, thanks for that, good advice. 
 
> With any of these approaches you *will* occasionally have a mid-air collision
> with someone else -- it's just a reality when it comes to distributed
> workflows.
> 
> -K