From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753956AbYJBJcp (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 05:32:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752945AbYJBJch (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 05:32:37 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:47725 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752774AbYJBJch (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 05:32:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:32:13 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Rusty Russell Cc: Mike Travis , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , David Miller , Yinghai Lu , Thomas Gleixner , Jack Steiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/31] cpumask: Documentation Message-ID: <20081002093213.GB4190@elte.hu> References: <20080929180250.111209000@polaris-admin.engr.sgi.com> <200810010849.46874.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20081001091325.GA12503@elte.hu> <200810021036.29054.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200810021036.29054.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Rusty Russell wrote: > > IMHO, an infrastructure change of this magnitude should absolutely > > be done via the Git space. This needs a ton of testing and needs > > bisection, a real Git track record, etc. > > Not yet. Committing untested patches into git is the enemy of > bisection; if one of my patches breaks an architecture, they lose the > ability to bisect until its fixed. If it's a series of patches, we > can go back and fix it. while the initial series might be rebased once or twice, beyond the 1-2 days of initial integration and testing i dont think that's true, and i'm doing up to 3-4 bisections a day just fine, on an append-mostly tree. if you have trouble turning a Git tree into a bisectable tree then your testing-fu is not strong enough ;-) [ the only plausible danger is to architectures that are not used by testers all that much (so that breakages can linger a lot longer unnoticed) - but why should the other 99% of Linux users be put at a disadvantage for them. ] Ingo