Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [kernel.org users] Please remember to run 'git gc' on your repositories | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:03:14 -0400 |
| |
[ took off users.kernel.org and added LKML ]
There's a thread started on LKML, search for the subject:
"[RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next" (thanks Ingo for the typo fix).
And continue this conversation there.
Thanks!
-- Steve
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 22:55 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: > Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > >> linux-next should not be used as a 'test and rebase' feedback loop for > >> build-broken, unbisectable crap. Why do you think it should be used for > >> that? > > > > I've been under the impression that linux-next has been created exactly > > for that: a tree that pulls everything together for testing and early > > merge conflict resolutions, and to be thrown away the next day when the > > process is repeated again. It is indeed exactly that: a "test and > > rebase" feedback tree where the big picture can be assessed before stuff > > is headed for Linus's tree where commits are then stable. > > > > To my knowledge, unlike Linus's tree, linux-next was never meant to be a > > stable tree itself, nor its components. > [...] > > The trees which are pulled into linux-next are supposed to be > unit-tested. It is material which you would ask Linus to pull if he had > a merge window open today. The only thing that this material may still > lack is integration testing (and exposure to mainline's huge userbase of > course). > > I have doubts that the majority of build errors which linux-next > frequently encounters are purely integration related.
| |