linux-kernel - Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull requests

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

Message-ID: <202410221231.55C03584@keescook>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:33:00 -0700
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, ksummit@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull
 requests

On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 04:12:43AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 23:48:34 -0700
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > > How about this, instead: no one sends -rc1 PRs to Linus that didn't go
> > > through -next. Just have a bot that replies to all PRs with a health
> > > check, and Linus can pull it if he thinks it looks good.   
> > 
> > Not just -rc1, otherwise agreed.
> 
> You mean have everything go into linux-next before going to Linus after -rc1?

It seems like the most useful signal would be for the initial PR for the
merge window. After that it becomes a lot of fixes that didn't get tons
of soak time in -next, etc.

-- 
Kees Cook