Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Bug-introducing patches

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 10:47:02 -0700
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
 
> I really don't think that helps.  The 0day mailing list bot seems to be
> a bit overloaded and about 80% of the automation isn't run *unless*

Really? I get reports on my branches about a lot of issues without ever
pushing it to next. Maybe I lucked out and these issues were caught by
the 20%.

When I have a branch ready to test, I push it to my local branch on
kernel.org and then kick off my own test suite. I like to see which one
will catch any bugs first. I usually get a response from 0day and a
couple of hours later my tests will fail with the same error. Thus I
found 0day to be quite efficient.

> your branch hits -next.  Our criterion for -next queueing is local
> tests pass, code inspection complete and 0day ML didn't complain. 
> However, we still get quite a few reports from the -next automated
> testing even after our local stuff.  I really don't see what delaying
> into -next buys you except delaying finding and fixing bugs.

But you state you have your own local tests, which I think could be
enough of a requirement. Although running allmod and allyes should be
part of a local test, but I think 0day does that too (as that's usually
the test that fails most often that 0day catches first).

> 
> This applies to 0day as well, because, by agreement, it has a much
> deeper set of xfstest runs for branches we actually queue for -next
> rather than the more cursory set of tests it runs on ML patches.

What about the tests on local branches? Not what you post to the ML.

-- Steve