From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765260AbYD3VbJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:31:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761148AbYD3Va4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:30:56 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:46617 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755690AbYD3Vaz (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:30:55 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:30:20 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) Cc: Dan Noe , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com, Stephen Rothwell References: <20080429.190352.137408408.davem@davemloft.net> <4818DAC4.0@isomerica.net> <20080430135938.82e46e67.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080430135938.82e46e67.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804302330.21743.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, 30 of April 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:47:00 -0400 > Dan Noe wrote: > > > On 4/30/2008 16:31, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> There should be nothing in 2.6.x-rc1 which wasn't in 2.6.x-mm1! > > > > > > The problem I see with both -mm and linux-next is that they tend to be > > > better at finding the "physical conflict" kind of issues (ie the merge > > > itself fails) than the "code looks ok but doesn't actually work" kind of > > > issue. > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > The tester base is simply too small. > > > > > > Now, if *that* could be improved, that would be wonderful, but I'm not > > > seeing it as very likely. > > > > Perhaps we should be clear and simple about what potential testers > > should be running at any given point in time. With -mm, linux-next, > > linux-2.6, etc, as a newcomer I find it difficult to know where my > > testing time and energy is best directed. > > -mm consists of the sum of > > a) the ~80 subsytem maintainers trees (git and quilt) > > b) the ~100 subsytem trees which are hosted only in -mm. > > > linux-next consists of only a) > > Soon I shall remove a) from -mm and will replace it with linux-next (this > should be a no-op). > > Later, I shall start feeding those 100 random subsystems into linux-next > as well (somehow). > > > Is linux-next the right thing to be running at this point? > > yes. 85% of the code which goes into Linux goes via the ~80 subsystem > maintainers' trees and is (or should be) in linux-next. The other 15% > is the hosted-in-mm work. > > > Is there a > > need for testing in a particular tree (netdev, x86, etc)? > > No, please test the sum-of-all-trees in linux-next. If you hit problems > then, as part of the problem resolving process a developer _might_ ask you > to test one tree specifically, but that would be a pretty unusual > circumstance. How bisectable is linux-next, BTW?