[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180511021018.GE949@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 11:10:18 +0900
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...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 Thu, May 10, 2018 at 06:03:22PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2018, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > 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.
> What I do for my trees is that I actually merge the '-fixes' branch (that
> is scheduled to go to Linus in the 'current' cycle) into my for-next
> branch as well.
> This has the advantage of (a) getting all the coverage linux-next does (b)
> seeing any potential merge conflicts early
> Is this not feasible for other trees?
That's obviously best practice which I hope everyone who doesn't have a
separate fix branch in -next is doing but it means that the fixes branch
is not getting tested without the changes in your -next branch, and also
reduces the coverage separate to other people's -next branches. This
means that there's room for implicit dependencies to slip through.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists