From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14F7FBC8 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:03:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E32811FD for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:03:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CCD12085D for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:03:47 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Olof Johansson Message-ID: <20150715160347.GB12543@kroah.com> References: <55A1407E.5080800@oracle.com> <55A26C5B.8060007@oracle.com> <20150713105210.6e367f4b@noble> <55A33E48.2040202@oracle.com> <20150713142132.08fead4d@gandalf.local.home> <20150713185118.GK11162@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: Sasha Levin , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Issues with stable process List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:52:13AM -0400, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:21:32PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > >> I disagree. I thought next was a place to have integration of new > >> development, and not just a place to test. Really, how many people test > >> next compared to Linus's tree? I trip over bugs all the times in > >> Linus's tree that's been in -next for almost a whole release cycle. > > > >> The only bugs that I find that come from -next is integration issues, > >> where an interface changes and another subsystem stumbles over it. > >> That's exactly what it was for and what it's good at. > > > > In the embedded space it's much more common to track -next as people are > > often working with multiple subsystems so the integration is important. > > Most of my code is developed against -next then moved to topic branches > > for submission. > > > > We also catch quite a lot of issues in -next as a result of the work on > > boot testing that kernelci.org and Olof's bots are doing, hopefully > > that'll start to build out to include test suites like kselftest (I know > > there's work in progress there but no ETA as of yet). Things get > > exposed to a lot more systems and configurations than individual > > maintainers have access to which can shake out issues in code that deals > > with hardware. > > I've stopped running -stable releases through the tester. It didn't > fit the way I kept track of what's been built very well and it was > hard to capture a useful state in which to test. > > For a while I tried to capture the current-state-of-the-queue from > gregkh's public quilt series ever so often, but it's quite churny. > There's an -rc that's posted for review but not tagged and not > provided as a git branch of applied patches, so it's hard to > automatically test just those. > > That would be the ideal setup for me though -- tagged or branched -rc > candidates of stable releases that I'd be happy to put through the > build/boot test at my end. kernelci now handles -rc stable releases, so would this just be a duplication of that work? thanks, greg k-h