[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <200607261318_MC3-1-C623-96BB@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:15:41 -0400
From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
Cc: Arnaud Patard <apatard@...driva.com>,
David Lang <dlang@...italinsight.com>,
Andrew de Quincey <adq_dvb@...skialf.net>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-stable <stable@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: automated test? (was Re: Linux 2.6.17.7)
In-Reply-To: <20060726142932.GE23701@...sta.de>
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:29:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The real problem is:
> How do we get some testing coverage of -stable kernels by users to catch
> issues?
> And compile errors are the least of my worries.
The problem with the current method of releasing patch candidates is
that it's too hard to test them. I would suggest:
1. In addition to posting all the patches separately to L-K,
post a combined patch. Have it change the makefile so it
says 2.6.X.Y-rcZ; that way if an oops gets posted we know
what the codebase was. If the patch is too big, put it
on a website.
2. Make the separate patches available on a website in Quilt
format like Andrew does with -mm. (Just like (1) above,
make sure it changes the kernel version.) This makes it
easier for testers to fix individual patches.
3. Keep posting -rc's until nobody reports problems.
It's easy to generate (1) from (2):
a. Untar the quilt patchset into the new directory.
Make sure the old and new dirs are subdirectories
of some common directory, are identical and they
are dist-clean.
b. mv broken-out patches
c. quilt push -a -q
d. cd ..
e. diff -uprN -X ignorefiles old new >old.new.patch
-- ignorefiles contains two lines:
.pc
patches
--
Chuck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists