[Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND] stable kernel stuff and grumpy maintainers [bisection/rebase/-next]

Stephen Rothwell sfr at canb.auug.org.au
Wed Jun 20 22:17:43 UTC 2012

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:28:28 -0500 Jason Wessel <jason.wessel at windriver.com> wrote:
> What is not clear to me is if the linux-next infrastructure even has
> close to the kind of cycles that are required to prove something
> bisects and build with all the permutations of a .config to fully
> build test a patch.  Having a metric and notifications for bisection
> and "intelligent .config" would hopefully improve quality.

It is clear that linux-next should not be doing (the vast majority) of
that.  Bisectability is property of each tree independently so should be
ensured by the developer and maintainer.  All linux-next is capable of
doing is (hopefully) catching problems caused by the interactions between
trees.  The build problems that irritate me are the ones that exist
entirely within a single tree - and I get way more of those than I should.

The most obvious thing to be done is that developers should be build and
boot testing with and without CONFIG options set that clearly influence
their patches.  They have the best idea just what those are and most
likely the hardware as well. i.e. more care and less haste right from the
start ...
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr at canb.auug.org.au
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/attachments/20120621/80d18b31/attachment.sig>

More information about the Ksummit-2012-discuss mailing list