[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uEWYmhA3owSeYM9tNA0tpMm5=4Yqda2j=VfMWi7i8ya8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 10:47:57 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
"ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"w@....eu" <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 04:21:26PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>
>> Then, why don't we have a pre-integration tree for fixes? That would
>> at least simply automated testing of fixes separately from new
>> material.
>
>> Perhaps this has already been discussed, and concluded and it's not
>> worth it, then apologize for my ignorance.
>
> I think this is an excellent idea, copying in Stephen for his input.
> I'm currently on holiday but unless someone convinces me it's a terrible
> idea I'm willing to at least give it a go on a trial basis once I'm back
> home.
Since Stephen merges all -fixes branches first, before merging all the
-next branches, he already generates that as part of linux-next. All
he'd need to do is push that intermediate state out to some
linux-fixes branch for consumption by test bots.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
Powered by blists - more mailing lists