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 19398E34 for ; Fri, 11 May 2018 02:10:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from heliosphere.sirena.org.uk (heliosphere.sirena.org.uk [172.104.155.198]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E75169F for ; Fri, 11 May 2018 02:10:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 11:10:18 +0900 From: Mark Brown To: Jiri Kosina Message-ID: <20180511021018.GE949@sirena.org.uk> References: <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> <20180509084440.GW13402@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="G6nVm6DDWH/FONJq" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: "w@1wt.eu" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Greg KH Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --G6nVm6DDWH/FONJq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 06:03:22PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Wed, 9 May 2018, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Since Stephen merges all -fixes branches first, before merging all the > > -next branches, he already generates that as part of linux-next. All > > he'd need to do is push that intermediate state out to some > > linux-fixes branch for consumption by test bots. > What I do for my trees is that I actually merge the '-fixes' branch (that= =20 > is scheduled to go to Linus in the 'current' cycle) into my for-next=20 > branch as well. > This has the advantage of (a) getting all the coverage linux-next does (b= )=20 > seeing any potential merge conflicts early > Is this not feasible for other trees? That's obviously best practice which I hope everyone who doesn't have a separate fix branch in -next is doing but it means that the fixes branch is not getting tested without the changes in your -next branch, and also reduces the coverage separate to other people's -next branches. This means that there's room for implicit dependencies to slip through. --G6nVm6DDWH/FONJq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAlr0+4oACgkQJNaLcl1U h9AgNgf/bAT4jhMrJUeKLkhow6ag+iOj8415TKB+/4p5WdMsxL3NTK1+I2+yyL6s FQ4pCIgT0MY29Gkxj778/kCcY1pZVsqp2RlGKELU9GTNY2FpblWnXoUoocibcbwO s/fQhbkpHpkz5vDTa86rHaD5KgtY5GhYh1SW0N5P6zxm2K0PtKcVW6Z+tJlx46mG XaRSJIKtzOQmKpXqWMP0cBGQlk7k7tQdH0Twxhj8IjVTvoBSbY0eo/z+S27j2TyS hWH/Y3FRGqOVcbvfFA2G0jPHBGRlsV9N0JESO8JU1baMMoExvwZobDHHg0Xq0KF+ 1VN+C1lVyWhFJrMPdpJL7A67nOnI3w== =4Usi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --G6nVm6DDWH/FONJq--