Re: automated test? (was Re: Linux 2.6.17.7)

Chuck Ebbert
2006-07-26T17:21:06Z

In-Reply-To: <20060726142932.GE23701@stusta.de>

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:29:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> The real problem is:
> How do we get some testing coverage of -stable kernels by users to catch
> issues?
> And compile errors are the least of my worries.

The problem with the current method of releasing patch candidates is
that it's too hard to test them. I would suggest:

1. In addition to posting all the patches separately to L-K,
post a combined patch. Have it change the makefile so it
says 2.6.X.Y-rcZ; that way if an oops gets posted we know
what the codebase was. If the patch is too big, put it
on a website.

2. Make the separate patches available on a website in Quilt
format like Andrew does with -mm. (Just like (1) above,
make sure it changes the kernel version.) This makes it
easier for testers to fix individual patches.

3. Keep posting -rc's until nobody reports problems.

It's easy to generate (1) from (2):

a. Untar the quilt patchset into the new directory.
Make sure the old and new dirs are subdirectories
of some common directory, are identical and they
are dist-clean.
b. mv broken-out patches
c. quilt push -a -q
d. cd ..
e. diff -uprN -X ignorefiles old new >old.new.patch
-- ignorefiles contains two lines:
.pc
patches

--
Chuck