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 C1A88ACC for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:14:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com (mail-ob0-f173.google.com [209.85.214.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4170C147 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:14:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbop1 with SMTP id op1so51961867obb.2 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <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> <20150715160347.GB12543@kroah.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:14:39 -0700 Message-ID: From: Olof Johansson To: Greg KH 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 Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Greg KH wrote: > 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? Great, then I won't waste my time on it. -Olof