Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Feb 2006 09:45:22 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: quality control |
| |
On Tue, Feb 07 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote: > > > > Look, it's really simple: lets say I make a change that has to do with > > PM, you do a quick compile test with and _without_ PM just to check you > > didn't screw anything up with that change. You change reiserfs acl > > stuff, you do a quick compile test with and without that configured. > > > > It's a pretty standard procedure, and contrary to what you think, it > > _is_ required before submitting a patch. No one is asking anyone to > > check all possible configure options, but the interesting data set is > > typically extremely easy to guess looking at a change. > > <rofl> > > bix:/usr/src/op> find patches -name '*build-fix*' | wc -l > 533 > > bix:/usr/src/op> find patches -name '*fix.patch' | wc -l > 5109 > > A lot of people don't make the slightest effort. But it's not a big > problem, really. Silly build errors are reported early and are almost > always trivial to fix. The major drawback is that they can wreck a -mm > release for many testers.
That's precisely the problem, it may be really simple to fix but often will stop people from testing.
Your fix count probably isn't totally accurate either, I bet a lot of these are fixups due to conflicts with other patches. I'm talking about the fact that someone sends Linus a patch which doesn't compile for the case you could (and should) have trivially checked. A little edumacation never hurt :-)
-- Jens Axboe
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |