Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Bug-introducing patches

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1667 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 02:20:19PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:

> 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".

I suspect this is something where if someone starts consistently
reporting test results things will get a lot better if someone
consistently reports test results and chases people to fix problems.  I
expect it to go like builds - used to see huge numbers of build and boot
failures in -next, and even in mainline, but ever since people started
actively pushing on them the results have got much better to the point
where it's the exeception rather than the rule.  You can see it
happening if you look at the build error/warning results from releases
over a few years (stable doesn't show it so clearly any more as a lot of
these fixes got backported there).

FWIW kernelci isn't nearly so bad on -next today - only four build
failures from the configurations it tests (someone managed to break
arm64) and the boot tests are clean apart from one board that's been
having what look like intermittent board specific issues.  

   https://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/next/branch/master/kernel/next-20180911/

No testsuites run there though.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]