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 11877BEC for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:52:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com (mail-ob0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C06C1D8 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:52:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbop1 with SMTP id op1so27936180obb.2 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 07:52:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150713185118.GK11162@sirena.org.uk> 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> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 10:52:13 -0400 Message-ID: From: Olof Johansson To: Mark Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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. -Olof