[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080421092648.943a871b.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:26:48 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kaber@...sh.net,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [bug] build failures, git trees
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:58:37 -0700 (PDT) David Miller wrote:
<deletia>
> If you really cared, you would run your randconfig system on, for
> example, the linux-next and -mm trees, which I've specifically
> suggested and you've specifically ignored. And there is no
> coincidence to that.
I do randconfigs on -mm and linux-next. I report most* of the
build problems ... and as far as I can tell, they are mostly
ignored (especially in linux-next).
*: I don't report Voyager/Visual WS/NUMA-Q build errors.
Maybe they will just disappear one day.
I also don't report drivers/media/ build errors. They are too easy
to reproduce. :(
IMO having -mm and linux-next is a diluting factor+. They dilute
both build and boot testing of the other one and of mainline
-rcs. Yes, they have their purposes, but it would be Very Good
if we could get to the point of having -mm built on top of
linux-next (e.g.) instead of it just being a separate tree.
+: Yes, there are other diluting factors, like having over 100 git
trees that someone may potentially request testing of.
---
~Randy
--
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