Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] [0/4] Common scenario for four proposals regarding regressions

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1014 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 08:57:29AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:

> Actually, if we got more people to try mainline we could perhaps find
> more bugs.  Testing -next is problematic because its instability makes
> things like bisection and update to next release difficult.

-next is problematic to actually *use* but it's not particularly bad for
testing, mostly it's fine but you have to be able to cope with things
going bad in you in potentially very bad ways.  For testing the
stability is generally perfectly fine, and given that the whole goal is
to find problems it's hard to see much of an issue.  Bisection also
works about as well as for mainline - you need to bisect from whatever
commit in Linus' tree things were based off (or pending-fixes if you
know that was fine) rather than a prior -next tag but otherwise I can't
say I notice much difference to mainline.

If your tests take more than a day to run then it gets more tricky, but
that's just generally harder no matter which tree you're testing.

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