Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] kernel unit testing

[Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1584 bytes --]



On 07/14/2016 04:59 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org 
> <mailto:alex.shi@linaro.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 07/13/2016 06:07 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>
>         On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 01:48:15PM +0900, Alex Shi wrote:
>
>             I am thinking if it's possible to share an basic tree
>             which include some
>             widely wanted backporting features. That could share the
>             testing and review,
>             then will reduce bugs much more.
>
>         Like LTSI already does today?  :)
>
>
>     It looks we share some basic ideas on backporting part. But
>     industry need much more backporting features. and new features
>     which out of upstream aren't started from here, since it's a
>     upstream quality without more eyes in community.
>
>
> If you want more eyes AND more backporting, how about you move ahead 
> to the newer version instead? In the end, if you'll backport most of 
> the code you end up with close to the same code base.
>
> Doing security and minimal security fixes on -stable is a very 
> different endeavor than creating downstream trees full of feature 
> backports.
>
> (We only care about a few features, you might say -- but once you join 
> up with others, who care about a few but different features, you'll 
> eventually end up approximating the kernel from which you're 
> backporting all these features).
>

It highly depends the new feature backporting criteria, like the current 
LTSI, there are no much feature backportings as its claimed.

Alex

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3317 bytes --]