[PATCH] dim: flag-day change from drm-intel-next-queued to drm-intel-next

[Joonas Lahtinen]

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 <daniel at ffwll.ch>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at 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.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>

Regards, Joonas