From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:22:48 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <20160711142248.GA3701@sirena.org.uk> References: <20160709000631.GB8989@io.lakedaemon.net> <1468024946.2390.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160709093626.GA6247@sirena.org.uk> <5781148F.1010102@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5781148F.1010102@roeck-us.net> Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 08:13:19AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > it works". We still have a long way to go to get real QA testing. As I > suggested earlier, we'll have to find a way to convince companies to actively > invest in QA. There *is* some stuff going on there (slowly) with kernelci.org including some more active work, but definitely more investment is indeed needed. I am somewhat hopeful that it'll be like a lot of the other testing things where once we start to see some results becoming available there will be a bit of a snowball effect and we'll start to see more people getting involved (I know I wouldn't have been running a build bot if I hadn't wanted things other build bots weren't offering at the time). > > There's also the volume of stable trees to consider here - we've got a > > large number of stable trees which seem to be maintained in different > > ways with different tooling. One big advantage from my point of view > > as a maintainer with the current model is that I don't have to figure > > out which I care about or anything like that. > The proliferation of stable trees (or rather, how to avoid it) might be > one of the parts of the puzzle. Yes, there are way too many right now. OTOH if people want to run a given kernel version it's nice for them to have a place to collaborate and share fixes. --bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXg6u3AAoJECTWi3JdVIfQ2agH/iyMs0zfktOGDIfqeosL7a9A chrjKeVTZcgIZZ+mBEO3Hp6G9jvG+niJ2ESbMv4sMVJ6833K20JuyemF9qsUoRH0 Ykg6HX4M+FOpQMmhMRL3PiTWYIxHEzseAtegX7+kbodEnDt90UCjHdDM8+/3AO/x LmfdMMJwQJLqSU3yWRfc7eNkXWdL6sYk/FEocklDNohu5HCAz7o69Dfe2mcPjHBu nqCKGwjH0DflaR6/HvSoDdyMBgKNY6mSq+TiZFMeiCo112dAmQ0TqHX8BhVF62sH mbPs6hih659sbhqvZVwjdrpyCHKRah6VCW8WSigtgSwRFly/xZL/IzT3biLwTe0= =j53X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn--