Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Issues with stable process

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:52:13AM -0400, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:21:32PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> >> I disagree. I thought next was a place to have integration of new
> >> development, and not just a place to test. Really, how many people test
> >> next compared to Linus's tree? I trip over bugs all the times in
> >> Linus's tree that's been in -next for almost a whole release cycle.
> >
> >> The only bugs that I find that come from -next is integration issues,
> >> where an interface changes and another subsystem stumbles over it.
> >> That's exactly what it was for and what it's good at.
> >
> > In the embedded space it's much more common to track -next as people are
> > often working with multiple subsystems so the integration is important.
> > Most of my code is developed against -next then moved to topic branches
> > for submission.
> >
> > We also catch quite a lot of issues in -next as a result of the work on
> > boot testing that kernelci.org and Olof's bots are doing, hopefully
> > that'll start to build out to include test suites like kselftest (I know
> > there's work in progress there but no ETA as of yet).  Things get
> > exposed to a lot more systems and configurations than individual
> > maintainers have access to which can shake out issues in code that deals
> > with hardware.
> 
> I've stopped running -stable releases through the tester. It didn't
> fit the way I kept track of what's been built very well and it was
> hard to capture a useful state in which to test.
> 
> For a while I tried to capture the current-state-of-the-queue from
> gregkh's public quilt series ever so often, but it's quite churny.
> There's an -rc that's posted for review but not tagged and not
> provided as a git branch of applied patches, so it's hard to
> automatically test just those.
> 
> That would be the ideal setup for me though -- tagged or branched -rc
> candidates of stable releases that I'd be happy to put through the
> build/boot test at my end.

kernelci now handles -rc stable releases, so would this just be a
duplication of that work?

thanks,

greg k-h