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 23330146F for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:46:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6E26102 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:46:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 17:46:38 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <20180910174638.26fff182@vmware.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20180910212019.GA32269@roeck-us.net> References: <20180905101710.73137669@gandalf.local.home> <20180907004944.GD16300@sasha-vm> <20180907014930.GE16300@sasha-vm> <20180907145437.GF16300@sasha-vm> <20180910194310.GV16300@sasha-vm> <20180910164519.6cbcc116@vmware.local.home> <20180910212019.GA32269@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Bug-introducing patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 14:20:19 -0700 Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 04:45:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > The best we can do is make the automated testing of linux-next better > > such that there's less -rc5 patches that need to go in in the first > > place. > > > > Would that help ? -next has been more or less unusable for a week or so. > Maybe it is just a bad time (it hasn't been as bad as it is right now > for quite some time), but > > Build results: > total: 135 pass: 133 fail: 2 > Qemu test results: > total: 315 pass: 112 fail: 203 > > on next-20180910 doesn't really make me very confident that useful regression > tests on -next are even possible. it seems to me that -next is quite often > used as dumping ground for sparsely tested changes, and is far from "ready > for upstream". > Honestly, I think this is something that Linus should yell at maintainers for. I treat my pushes into linux-next the same as I treat my pull requests to Linus. I don't push anything into next until it's been fully run through my test suite, and passes. That also makes it easier for me to know that whatever I have in next is also ready for Linus (the way it was suppose to be). With the 0day bot, I think it's become much better. But honestly, I think any branch that causes next to fail to build, or run basic tests, should be taken out of linux-next and a nasty message sent to the guilty maintainer. With the exception that a breakage was caused by two conflicting commits (for example, one that changes an API, and another branch that uses that API without the update). Those types of breakages is what linux-next is made for. But if the branch being pulled into linux-next breaks something without the integration, then that's unacceptable. -- Steve