Re: [linux-mingo-tip-master test] 17105: regressions - FAIL

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 05:37:50PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> 
> Tuesday, March 5, 2013, 5:29:22 PM, you wrote:
> 
> > Sander Eikelenboom writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [linux-mingo-tip-master test] 17105: regressions - FAIL"):
> >> Tuesday, March 5, 2013, 5:13:10 PM, you wrote:
> >> > I poked hpa about it and he mentioned that Ingo sporadically updates
> >> > his tree.  So going to poke him in a week since v3.9-rc1 just
> >> > came out.
> >> 
> >> Would it be an idea to setup a branch (in konrad's tree) that follows tip-master, but allows konrad to apply patches that are "under way" (accepted but not yet applied)  and are important (needed to boot etc ?) and test that one instead ?
> 
> > That would be simple from my pov.  I don't have an opinion about it.
> 
> It's as always a tradeoff, an extra burden for Konrad, but less wastage of test resources.
> Could be something like a "linux-next" but then only for Xen-patches applied on top of branch tracking perhaps the most important tree (x86).
> Testing linux-next it self could probably hang on to many non Xen related problems.

Actually, linux-next could be a good option too. It is suppose to be the next
thing going to Linus so hopefully working.

Ian, would it be possible to set this up?
> 
> > Ian.
> 
>