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 BF43E2F for ; Tue, 8 May 2018 02:34:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from NAM03-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03on0121.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.40.121]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 595D6299 for ; Tue, 8 May 2018 02:34:43 +0000 (UTC) From: Sasha Levin To: Tony Lindgren Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 02:34:41 +0000 Message-ID: <20180508023439.GA8514@sasha-vm> References: <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> <20180503230905.GA98604@atomide.com> In-Reply-To: <20180503230905.GA98604@atomide.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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: , On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 04:09:05PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: >* 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 use= s, 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 worki= ng. > >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= . Tony, I'm curious, how many users are you aware of who actually run Linus's tree? All the users I've encountered so far on Azure seem to be running something based on -stable. I can't really get any solid statistics about that on my end both because I don't have visibility inside user VMs (I don't actually have prod access believe it or not), and even if I had it would probably be=20 confidential, so I'm just basing this on reports from user's I've seen=20 so far. I think that a question we should be asking ourselves is whether we should be basing our decisions here on the assumption that (pretty much) no one runs Linus's tree anymore?=