From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <57815317.5060404@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2016 20:40:07 +0100 From: Sudip Mukherjee MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guenter Roeck , Mark Brown , Jiri Kosina References: <20160709000631.GB8989@io.lakedaemon.net> <1468024946.2390.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160709093626.GA6247@sirena.org.uk> <5781148F.1010102@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <5781148F.1010102@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Saturday 09 July 2016 04:13 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 07/09/2016 02:36 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 10:43:05AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: >> >>> If maintainers are overwhelmed by extra work needed for stable, >>> "offloading to Greg" doesn't sound like a proper solution to me at all. >>> "Fixing a maintainer workflow for that particular subsystem" (such as >>> extending the group of maintainers) does. >> >> I think one of the big things we're missing here is QA. I don't >> personally have the hardware that would allow me to test a huge chunk of >> the code in my subsystems, I'm relying on things like kernelci.org for >> the bulk of it. There's some work going on on getting Greg's stable >> queue tested more which will hopefully make things better but it's not >> 100% there yet. >> > Improving QA is very much part of it. Yes, there is kernelci.org, there is > kerneltest.org, there are the 0day builders, and there are various > individuals > testing the trees. This all helped a lot in stabilizing both mainline and > the stable trees, but is not enough. We are pretty well covered with build > tests, but runtime tests are for the most part limited to "it boots, > therefore > it works". We still have a long way to go to get real QA testing. As I > suggested earlier, we'll have to find a way to convince companies to > actively > invest in QA. Individual testing will depend mostly on the available time. Personally for me, I used to test before but with my job change I rarely get time to check stable anymore. Just a thought, why dont we have a stable-next tree like the way we have linux-next? in that way it might get more testing than it gets now. I know it will be more work but atleast worth a try. Regards Sudip