lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Slow DOWN, please!!!
    Date
    On Wednesday, 30 of April 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:47:00 -0400
    > Dan Noe <dpn@isomerica.net> wrote:
    >
    > > On 4/30/2008 16:31, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > >
    > > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > >> <jumps up and down>
    > > >>
    > > >> There should be nothing in 2.6.x-rc1 which wasn't in 2.6.x-mm1!
    > > >
    > > > The problem I see with both -mm and linux-next is that they tend to be
    > > > better at finding the "physical conflict" kind of issues (ie the merge
    > > > itself fails) than the "code looks ok but doesn't actually work" kind of
    > > > issue.
    > > >
    > > > Why?
    > > >
    > > > The tester base is simply too small.
    > > >
    > > > Now, if *that* could be improved, that would be wonderful, but I'm not
    > > > seeing it as very likely.
    > >
    > > Perhaps we should be clear and simple about what potential testers
    > > should be running at any given point in time. With -mm, linux-next,
    > > linux-2.6, etc, as a newcomer I find it difficult to know where my
    > > testing time and energy is best directed.
    >
    > -mm consists of the sum of
    >
    > a) the ~80 subsytem maintainers trees (git and quilt)
    >
    > b) the ~100 subsytem trees which are hosted only in -mm.
    >
    >
    > linux-next consists of only a)
    >
    > Soon I shall remove a) from -mm and will replace it with linux-next (this
    > should be a no-op).
    >
    > Later, I shall start feeding those 100 random subsystems into linux-next
    > as well (somehow).
    >
    > > Is linux-next the right thing to be running at this point?
    >
    > yes. 85% of the code which goes into Linux goes via the ~80 subsystem
    > maintainers' trees and is (or should be) in linux-next. The other 15%
    > is the hosted-in-mm work.
    >
    > > Is there a
    > > need for testing in a particular tree (netdev, x86, etc)?
    >
    > No, please test the sum-of-all-trees in linux-next. If you hit problems
    > then, as part of the problem resolving process a developer _might_ ask you
    > to test one tree specifically, but that would be a pretty unusual
    > circumstance.

    How bisectable is linux-next, BTW?


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-30 23:33    [W:0.024 / U:2.100 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site