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 E7F0D89E for ; Thu, 10 May 2018 16:03:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 645B16B0 for ; Thu, 10 May 2018 16:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 18:03:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Daniel Vetter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20180501205448.GE10479@thunk.org> <20180501211551.GI2714@sirena.org.uk> <20180502194632.GB18390@sasha-vm> <20180503020550.GP2714@sirena.org.uk> <20180503031000.GC29205@thunk.org> <0276fcda-0385-8f22-dbdb-e063f7ed8bbe@roeck-us.net> <20180503224217.GR2714@sirena.org.uk> <20180503230905.GA98604@atomide.com> <20180509084440.GW13402@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Greg KH , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , "w@1wt.eu" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 9 May 2018, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> Then, why don't we have a pre-integration tree for fixes? That would > >> at least simply automated testing of fixes separately from new > >> material. > > > >> Perhaps this has already been discussed, and concluded and it's not > >> worth it, then apologize for my ignorance. > > > > I think this is an excellent idea, copying in Stephen for his input. > > I'm currently on holiday but unless someone convinces me it's a terrible > > idea I'm willing to at least give it a go on a trial basis once I'm back > > home. > > Since Stephen merges all -fixes branches first, before merging all the > -next branches, he already generates that as part of linux-next. All > he'd need to do is push that intermediate state out to some > linux-fixes branch for consumption by test bots. What I do for my trees is that I actually merge the '-fixes' branch (that is scheduled to go to Linus in the 'current' cycle) into my for-next branch as well. This has the advantage of (a) getting all the coverage linux-next does (b) seeing any potential merge conflicts early Is this not feasible for other trees? -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs