From: "Levin, Alexander" <alexander.levin@verizon.com>
To: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [Ksummit-discuss] Self nomination - Sasha Levin
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 00:46:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160826044651.GA25341@sasha-lappy> (raw)
Hi all,
Appologies for the late mail - betweem workplace change (and ML mails bouncing off the old @oracle.com mail), and some personal stuff, I've missed the fact that planning and discussions have already started!
I wanted to discuss a variety of topics regarding stable kernels, testing, and testing stable kernels:
- My new employer is a heavy user of "cutting edge" stable kernels, and as such I'm looking into ways to improve the process. Making people complain and express their unhappiness with concrete workflows is a good way for me to make improvements on my end.
- Automating the while -stable process further: it's too dependant on humans getting things right which is a recipe for disaster. I have a few proposals about how to reduce the human aspect of it further to improve the quality of the resulting trees (expanding stable-tools even further!).
- We need to figure out ways to integrate tests better, beyond the usual 3 day review window we have for "testing" where no *actual* user tests anything. In the example of Verizon, it simply doesn't fit in the workflow and we'd need to make a good amount of modifications to make it happen, so I bet it's the same issue for other users of the tree.
- Reviewing the stable rules and adjusting them to reality. There's a mismatch between what the rules say and what actually happens.
- A few smaller ideas I want to bounce off maintainers:
- Adding stable@ tags to commits is "complicated", it requires editing the commit message which is an extra step that people are too lazy to take, how can we improve that?
- Making checkpatch check for (some) of the stable kernel rules (and possibly recommend adding the stable@ tag in certain cases?).
- Depends on: making checkpatch sane again.
- Improving tagging for stable. The "version tag" option is broken and the "Fixes:" tag is always preferable, how do we get people to use that more often? (script it somehow? scripts/find-version-it-fixes ?).
--
Thanks,
Sasha
next reply other threads:[~2016-08-26 4:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-26 4:46 Levin, Alexander [this message]
2016-08-26 11:26 ` Greg KH
2016-08-26 11:42 ` James Hogan
2016-08-26 11:50 ` James Hogan
2016-08-26 12:27 ` Jani Nikula
2016-08-26 12:39 ` James Hogan
2016-08-26 11:56 ` Greg KH
2016-08-26 12:17 ` James Hogan
2016-08-26 13:44 ` Levin, Alexander
2016-08-26 11:48 ` Julia Lawall
2016-08-26 11:55 ` Julia Lawall
2016-08-26 12:11 ` Greg KH
2016-08-26 13:51 ` Levin, Alexander
2016-08-26 13:55 ` Julia Lawall
2016-08-26 18:52 ` Levin, Alexander
2016-08-26 19:59 ` Julia Lawall
2016-08-26 12:08 ` Julia Lawall
2016-08-26 18:55 ` Levin, Alexander
2016-08-26 13:39 ` Levin, Alexander
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160826044651.GA25341@sasha-lappy \
--to=alexander.levin@verizon.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox