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 E9EF91050 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:39:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84EA576D for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 18:39:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:39:23 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20180911143923.11e479ea@vmware.local.home> In-Reply-To: <1536688022.3511.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <20180907145437.GF16300@sasha-vm> <20180910194310.GV16300@sasha-vm> <20180910164519.6cbcc116@vmware.local.home> <20180910212019.GA32269@roeck-us.net> <20180910174638.26fff182@vmware.local.home> <20180910230301.GB1764@localhost.localdomain> <20180910191329.70f90a14@vmware.local.home> <20180911114227.241f2e5d@vmware.local.home> <20180911174043.GK5659@atomide.com> <1536688022.3511.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> 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 Tue, 11 Sep 2018 10:47:02 -0700 James Bottomley wrote: > I really don't think that helps. The 0day mailing list bot seems to be > a bit overloaded and about 80% of the automation isn't run *unless* Really? I get reports on my branches about a lot of issues without ever pushing it to next. Maybe I lucked out and these issues were caught by the 20%. When I have a branch ready to test, I push it to my local branch on kernel.org and then kick off my own test suite. I like to see which one will catch any bugs first. I usually get a response from 0day and a couple of hours later my tests will fail with the same error. Thus I found 0day to be quite efficient. > your branch hits -next. Our criterion for -next queueing is local > tests pass, code inspection complete and 0day ML didn't complain. > However, we still get quite a few reports from the -next automated > testing even after our local stuff. I really don't see what delaying > into -next buys you except delaying finding and fixing bugs. But you state you have your own local tests, which I think could be enough of a requirement. Although running allmod and allyes should be part of a local test, but I think 0day does that too (as that's usually the test that fails most often that 0day catches first). > > This applies to 0day as well, because, by agreement, it has a much > deeper set of xfstest runs for branches we actually queue for -next > rather than the more cursory set of tests it runs on ML patches. What about the tests on local branches? Not what you post to the ML. -- Steve