From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81E5AED1 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:22:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4BC47D3 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:22:14 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1536686530.3511.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Guenter Roeck , Mark Brown Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 10:22:10 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20180911170212.GC8284@roeck-us.net> References: <20180907004944.GD16300@sasha-vm> <20180907014930.GE16300@sasha-vm> <20180907145437.GF16300@sasha-vm> <20180910194310.GV16300@sasha-vm> <20180910164519.6cbcc116@vmware.local.home> <20180910212019.GA32269@roeck-us.net> <20180911111853.GB8018@sirena.org.uk> <20180911170212.GC8284@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Bug-introducing patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2018-09-11 at 10:02 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 12:18:53PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 02:20:19PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > > Would that help ? -next has been more or less unusable for a week > > > or so. Maybe it is just a bad time (it hasn't been as bad as it > > > is right now for quite some time), but Build results: > > > total: 135 pass: 133 fail: 2 > > > Qemu test results: > > > total: 315 pass: 112 fail: 203 > > > on next-20180910 doesn't really make me very confident that > > > useful regression tests on -next are even possible. it seems to > > > me that -next is quite often used as dumping ground for sparsely > > > tested changes, and is far from "ready for upstream". > > > > I suspect this is something where if someone starts consistently > > reporting test results things will get a lot better if someone > > consistently reports test results and chases people to fix > > problems.  I expect it to go like builds - used to see huge numbers > > of build and boot failures in -next, and even in mainline, but ever > > since people started actively pushing on them the results have got > > much better to the point where it's the exeception rather than the > > rule.  You can see it happening if you look at the build > > error/warning results from releases over a few years (stable > > doesn't show it so clearly any more as a lot of these fixes got > > backported there). > > > > FWIW, for the most part I stopped reporting issues with -next after > some people yelled at me for the 'noise' I was creating. Along the > line of "This has been fixed in branch xxx; why don't you do your > homework and check there", with branch xxx not even being in -next. I > don't mind "this has already been reported/fixed", quite the > contrary, but the "why don't you do your homework" got me over the > edge. Not to excuse rudeness, we always try to be polite on lists when this happens, but -next builds on Australian time, so when we find and fix an issue there can be up to 24h before it propagates. In that time, particularly if it's a stupid bug, it gets picked up and flagged by a number of self contained 0day type projects and possibly a couple of coccinelle type ones as well. It does get a bit repetitive for maintainers to receive and have to respond to 4 or 5 bug reports for something they just fixed ... Perhaps the -next tracking projects could have some sort of co- ordination list to prevent the five bug reports for the same issue problem? James