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 0A630FBE for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:41:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f193.google.com (mail-io0-f193.google.com [209.85.223.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A70E87CD for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:41:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f193.google.com with SMTP id r196-v6so4289091iod.0 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 10:41:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180911173143.GE10123@sirena.org.uk> References: <20180907014930.GE16300@sasha-vm> <20180907145437.GF16300@sasha-vm> <20180910194310.GV16300@sasha-vm> <20180910164519.6cbcc116@vmware.local.home> <20180910212019.GA32269@roeck-us.net> <20180911111853.GB8018@sirena.org.uk> <20180911170212.GC8284@roeck-us.net> <87k1nsdkl6.fsf@intel.com> <20180911173143.GE10123@sirena.org.uk> From: Daniel Vetter Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 19:41:40 +0200 Message-ID: To: Mark Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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, Sep 11, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 08:12:37PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2018, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >> > FWIW, for the most part I stopped reporting issues with -next after some people >> > yelled at me for the 'noise' I was creating. Along the line of "This has been >> > fixed in branch xxx; why don't you do your homework and check there", with >> > branch xxx not even being in -next. > >> What would be the reason for *not* having all the branches, including >> fixes, of a subsystem/driver in linux-next? Baffled. > > Some people only put things into -next after they've passed QA (like > Steven's thing about 0day) so you'll see branches that are undergoing QA > in git before they get merged into the -next branch. This is why we have a pre-merge CI SLA of mean latency < 6h for the full pre-merge run. This is from the time your patch hits the m-l to when the most extensive runs have completed (representing about 1 week of machine). Early smoke-test results show up much earlier. In practice this means you're almost always limited by review turn-around, and not by CI. Exactly to avoid the "the regression fix is ready except not yet fully tested" issues. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch