Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! | Date | Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:30:20 +0200 |
| |
On Wednesday, 30 of April 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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.
How bisectable is linux-next, BTW?
| |