[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090612134940.GD32105@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:49:40 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
paulus@...ba.org, ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: origin tree build failure
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 23:10 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > To some extent, here, the issue is on Linus side and it's up to him (Hey
> > Linus ! still listening ?) to maybe be more proactive at giving an ack
> > or nack so that we can get a chance to do that final pass of ironing out
> > the mechanical bugs before we hit the main tree.
>
> Let me add a little bit more background to my reasoning here and why I
> think having this integration testing step is so valuable...
>
> It all boils down to bisection and having a bisectable tree.
I think you are way too concentrated on this particular incident,
and you are generalizing it into something that is not so in
practice.
Even in this particular case, there's just 3 other commit points in
the Git tree between commit 8a1ca8c (the breakage on PowerPC) and
e14112d (the fix). We'll have up to 10,000 commits.
I bisect on an almost daily basis, and i'm not seeing unreasonable
problems.
Ingo
--
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