linux-kernel - Re: [kernel.org users] Please remember to run 'git gc' on your repositories

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1256331794.26028.36.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:03:14 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...il.com>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [kernel.org users] Please remember to run 'git gc' on your
 repositories

[ took off users.kernel.org and added LKML ]

There's a thread started on LKML, search for the subject:


"[RFC] to rebase or not to rebase on linux-next" (thanks Ingo for the
typo fix).

And continue this conversation there.

Thanks!

-- Steve



On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 22:55 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> >> linux-next should not be used as a 'test and rebase' feedback loop for 
> >> build-broken, unbisectable crap. Why do you think it should be used for 
> >> that?
> > 
> > I've been under the impression that linux-next has been created exactly 
> > for that: a tree that pulls everything together for testing and early 
> > merge conflict resolutions, and to be thrown away the next day when the 
> > process is repeated again.  It is indeed exactly that: a "test and 
> > rebase" feedback tree where the big picture can be assessed before stuff 
> > is headed for Linus's tree where commits are then stable.
> > 
> > To my knowledge, unlike Linus's tree, linux-next was never meant to be a 
> > stable tree itself, nor its components.
> [...]
> 
> The trees which are pulled into linux-next are supposed to be
> unit-tested.  It is material which you would ask Linus to pull if he had
> a merge window open today.  The only thing that this material may still
> lack is integration testing (and exposure to mainline's huge userbase of
> course).
> 
> I have doubts that the majority of build errors which linux-next
> frequently encounters are purely integration related.

--
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/