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 C8FD4483 for ; Thu, 3 May 2018 23:15:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from muru.com (muru.com [72.249.23.125]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8432D67D for ; Thu, 3 May 2018 23:15:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 16:09:05 -0700 From: Tony Lindgren To: Mark Brown Message-ID: <20180503230905.GA98604@atomide.com> References: <20180501194450.GD10479@thunk.org> <20180501200019.GA7397@sasha-vm> <20180501205448.GE10479@thunk.org> <20180501211551.GI2714@sirena.org.uk> <20180502194632.GB18390@sasha-vm> <20180503020550.GP2714@sirena.org.uk> <20180503031000.GC29205@thunk.org> <0276fcda-0385-8f22-dbdb-e063f7ed8bbe@roeck-us.net> <20180503224217.GR2714@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180503224217.GR2714@sirena.org.uk> Cc: Greg KH , "w@1wt.eu" , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , * Mark Brown [180503 22:44]: > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:52:29PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > As for -next, me and others stopped reporting bugs in it, because when we do > > we tend to get flamed for the "noise". Is anyone aware (or cares) that mips > > and nds32 images don't build ? Soaking clothes in an empty bathtub won't make > > them wet, and bugs in code which no one builds, much less tests or uses, won't > > be found. > > You've been flamed for testing -next? That's not been my experience and > frankly it's pretty horrifying that it's happening. Testing is pretty > much the whole point of -next existing in the first place so you have to > wonder why people are putting their trees there if they don't want > testing. I have seen a few issues with people reporting bugs on old > versions of -next but otherwise... Yes I agree testing Linux next is very important. That's the best way for maintainers to ensure a usable -rc1 after a merge window. And then for the -rc cycle, there not much of need for chasing bugs to get things working. Bugs reported for Linux next often seem to get fixed or reverted faster compared to the -rc cycle too. I think that's because people realize that their code will not get merged until it's been fixed. So some daily testing of Linux next can save a lot scrambling after the merge window :) Users don't usually upgrade kernels until after later -rc releases or only after major releases so that probably explains some of the -rc cycle fixes. Regards, Tony