Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:32:13 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/31] cpumask: Documentation |
| |
* Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> > IMHO, an infrastructure change of this magnitude should absolutely > > be done via the Git space. This needs a ton of testing and needs > > bisection, a real Git track record, etc. > > Not yet. Committing untested patches into git is the enemy of > bisection; if one of my patches breaks an architecture, they lose the > ability to bisect until its fixed. If it's a series of patches, we > can go back and fix it.
while the initial series might be rebased once or twice, beyond the 1-2 days of initial integration and testing i dont think that's true, and i'm doing up to 3-4 bisections a day just fine, on an append-mostly tree.
if you have trouble turning a Git tree into a bisectable tree then your testing-fu is not strong enough ;-)
[ the only plausible danger is to architectures that are not used by testers all that much (so that breakages can linger a lot longer unnoticed) - but why should the other 99% of Linux users be put at a disadvantage for them. ]
Ingo
| |