[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180509204727.7ff38021@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 20:47:27 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>, "w@....eu" <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches
On Wed, 9 May 2018 18:03:46 +0900 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 10:47:57AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
Good idea ... I will see what I can do.
> True. It's currently only those -fixes branches that people have asked
> him to merge separately which isn't as big a proportion of trees as have
> them (perhaps fortunately given people's enthusiasm for fixes branches
> that don't merge cleanly with their development branches) so we'd also
> need to encourage people to add them separately.
I currently have 44 such fixes branches. More welcome!
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists