Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:59:38 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! |
| |
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:47:00 -0400 Dan Noe <dpn@isomerica.net> wrote:
> On 4/30/2008 16:31, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> <jumps up and down> > >> > >> There should be nothing in 2.6.x-rc1 which wasn't in 2.6.x-mm1! > > > > The problem I see with both -mm and linux-next is that they tend to be > > better at finding the "physical conflict" kind of issues (ie the merge > > itself fails) than the "code looks ok but doesn't actually work" kind of > > issue. > > > > Why? > > > > The tester base is simply too small. > > > > Now, if *that* could be improved, that would be wonderful, but I'm not > > seeing it as very likely. > > Perhaps we should be clear and simple about what potential testers > should be running at any given point in time. With -mm, linux-next, > linux-2.6, etc, as a newcomer I find it difficult to know where my > testing time and energy is best directed.
-mm consists of the sum of
a) the ~80 subsytem maintainers trees (git and quilt)
b) the ~100 subsytem trees which are hosted only in -mm.
linux-next consists of only a)
Soon I shall remove a) from -mm and will replace it with linux-next (this should be a no-op).
Later, I shall start feeding those 100 random subsystems into linux-next as well (somehow).
> Is linux-next the right thing to be running at this point?
yes. 85% of the code which goes into Linux goes via the ~80 subsystem maintainers' trees and is (or should be) in linux-next. The other 15% is the hosted-in-mm work.
> Is there a > need for testing in a particular tree (netdev, x86, etc)?
No, please test the sum-of-all-trees in linux-next. If you hit problems then, as part of the problem resolving process a developer _might_ ask you to test one tree specifically, but that would be a pretty unusual circumstance.
| |