[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4818DAC4.0@isomerica.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:47:00 -0400
From: Dan Noe <dpn@...merica.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jirislaby@...il.com
Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!!
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.
Is linux-next the right thing to be running at this point? Is there a
need for testing in a particular tree (netdev, x86, etc)?
Cheers,
Dan
--
/--------------- - - - - - -
| Dan Noe
| http://isomerica.net/~dpn/
--
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