Re: New (now current development process)

[Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 11:22:34PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 07:14:02PM -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > > I think you are exagerating.
> > > 
> > > It builds on most configs most of the time in my experience.  If I
> > > haven't tried a crosstool rebuild of the several defconfig arch's in a
> > > week, I might expect one of the less popular archs to drop out, usually
> > > for something so easy even I can figure some sort of fix or workaround.
> > 
> > Try allmodconfig for a change...  I'm doing that for mainline on a regular
> > basis and even that turns into considerable amount of time.  I have tried
> > that for -mm and had to give up.
> 
> fud.  Every -mm release is built with allmodconfig on x86 and on x86_64. 
> It's also cross-compiled on fat configs for alpha, ppc32, ppc64, sparc64,
> arm and ia64.  It's booted on x86, x86_64, ppc64 and ia64.  Every release.

What fud?  I stand by my claim - I have tried to do the same thing for
-mm and found that I didn't have guts for that; too much work.  For mainline
I do cross-builds for allmodconfig on a *lot* more targets than what you've
mentioned and generally it stays within ~150-200Kb of patches, about half
of that being a fix for 8390 mess.

_IF_ somebody wants to do that for -mm, yell and you are more than welcome
to all infrastructure, except for the cycles on build box I'm using.
Incidentally, it is a box at work - my energy bill is high enough as it
is, without adding an 8-way 3GHz iamd64 to it...

The last time I've attempted that for -mm was this summer; right now mainline
is quite enough work, TYVM...  Especially since I use the same tree as a
staging point for annotations and watch for build regressions both for gcc
and sparse.