Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:18:03 +0100 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees |
| |
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:01:25AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > I think the main difference between these review announcements > and true CI is what kind of guaranty you get for a release candidate > from NOT getting a test failure response, which is one of the main > reasons that where holding back xfs stable fixes for so long.
That's not true, I know to wait for some responses before doing a release of these kernels.
> Best effort testing in timely manner is good, but a good way to > improve confidence in stable kernel releases is a publicly > available list of tests that the release went through.
We have that, you aren't noticing them...
> Do you have any such list of tests that you *know* are being run, > that you (or Sasha) run yourself or that you actively wait on an > ACK from a group before a release?
Yes, look at the responses to those messages from Guenter, Shuah, Jon, kernel.ci, Red Hat testing, the Linaro testing teams, and a few other testers that come and go over time. Those list out all of the tests that are being run, and the results of those tests.
I also get a number of private responses from different build systems from companies that don't want to post in public, which is fine, I understand the issues involved with that.
I would argue that the stable releases are better tested than Linus's releases for that reason alone :)
thanks,
greg k-h
| |