From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 16:32:24 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Jiri Kosina Message-ID: <20160711233224.GA5723@roeck-us.net> 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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: , On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:18:01AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Sat, 9 Jul 2016, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > As I suggested earlier, we'll have to find a way to convince companies > > to actively invest in QA. > > The potential issue I see here is coverage. > > Linus' tree greatly benefits from the "crowdsourcing" effect, in a sense > that everybody is, at the end of the day, interested in that tree to work > (because most of the stakeholders are going to include that codebase in > their product sooner or later). > > That's not the case with stable codestreams; the interest there is much > more scattered. > Scattered but still existing. Either case, I don't think the crowdsourcing model works well with stable kernels, because most of the stakeholders are only interested in a very limited subset of stable branches. The challenge will be to find a consistent way to test _all_ stable kernels, and to test those branches much more thoroughly than it is done today. Guenter