[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1244816582.7172.175.camel@pasglop>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:23:02 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 16:11 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Maybe. But maybe it's representative... so far in this merge
> > window, 100% of the powerpc build and runtime breakage upstream
> > comes from stuff that didn't get into -next before.
>
> But that's axiomatic, isnt it? linux-next build-tests PowerPC as the
> first in the row of tests - so no change that was in linux-next can
> ever cause a build failure on PowerPC, right?
I'd have to check with Stephen but I think linux-next tests a whole
bunch of archs each round. Anyway, the idea is, just don't get things
upstream before the at least had a chance to go through that little bit
of integration testing .. Is it -that- hard ?
Oh and before you ask me, yes, I do the same mistakes, and I have been
caught too merging things at the last minute that ended up broken and
that could have been caught by -next... I'm just trying to advocate the
idea that we all try to improve in that area :-)
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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