Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull requests

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Wed, 2024-10-23 at 04:20 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
[...]
> I did push urgent branches to linux-next some time back, but never
> found any advantage in doing so, so I stopped doing it. As the code
> in my urgent branches are just fixing the stuff already in Linus's
> tree, they seldom ever have any effect on other subsystems. My new
> work does benefit from being in linux-next. But since I don't find
> more testing in linux-next for things that are already in Linus's
> tree, I still don't see how its worth the time to put my urgent work
> there.

What do you mean "push" to linux-next?  You just give Stephen a list of
branches and he pulls.  I do have a single for-next tag that he pulls
so I merge both fixes and collecting merge window stuff into that, but
I do this so I can see immediately if we have an internal conflict,
which is the most common problem.

If you don't want any work at all, just name your fixes branch and tell
Stephen and then he'll tell you if there's a problem.  In this model
you don't have to do *anything*.

Regards,

James