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 19999E92 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:03:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pl1-f174.google.com (mail-pl1-f174.google.com [209.85.214.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C0B3F1 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:03:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f174.google.com with SMTP id s17-v6so10402803plp.7 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:03:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 16:03:03 -0700 From: Eduardo Valentin To: Steven Rostedt Message-ID: <20180910230301.GB1764@localhost.localdomain> References: <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> <20180910174638.26fff182@vmware.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180910174638.26fff182@vmware.local.home> 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, Sep 10, 2018 at 05:46:38PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > 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). Shouldn't we all be doing that? > > 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. I thought that was the case already, everthing that goes to linux-next is ready to go to Linus. > > -- Steve > _______________________________________________ > Ksummit-discuss mailing list > Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss