From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932774AbYD3U74 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:59:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755971AbYD3U7p (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:59:45 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:42166 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753848AbYD3U7o (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:59:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:59:38 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Dan Noe Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, rjw@sisk.pl, davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! Message-Id: <20080430135938.82e46e67.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <4818DAC4.0@isomerica.net> References: <20080429.190352.137408408.davem@davemloft.net> <200804302136.58005.rjw@sisk.pl> <20080430131537.1f7a0914.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4818DAC4.0@isomerica.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.