From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261653AbVGWJWP (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jul 2005 05:22:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261656AbVGWJWP (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jul 2005 05:22:15 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:9359 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261653AbVGWJWN (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jul 2005 05:22:13 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Jesper Krogh Subject: Re: Giving developers clue how many testers verified certain kernel version Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:21:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <200507230244.11338.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: linuxnews.dk User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1pl1 (Debian) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I gmane.linux.kernel, skrev Blaisorblade: > Forgot drivers testing? That is where most of the bugs are hidden, and where > wide user testing is definitely needed because of the various hardware bugs > and different configurations existing in real world. A way that could raise the testing upon a particular kernel, would be to provide; (debian example follows): ... example .. An apt-repository with the newest tagged kernel build modular for the architecture. Just drop all tagged kernels in a common repository that the users can follow, then I'd be happy to test a new kernel on every reboot on my system. I'd probably still would respond if anything was broken in the new kernel.. Then it wouldn't be: "try this patch and see if that solves anything" but do: apt-get install kernel-image-386-torvalds-linux-2.6-v2.6.13-rc3 (automatically build from the "torvalds/linux-2.6"-branch with tag "v2.6.13-rc3" using a modular kernel-configuration similar to the one used in the stock debian kernels. Then I find and report something and "Pavel Machek" releases a "try-fix", by tagging a branch ind a tree and tells me to try kernel-image-386-pavel-good-2.6-v2.6.13-rc3 instead. (and variations.. acip/no-acip smp, etc. etc. ) ... example end .. It would be quite a lot central kernel-building, but as far as I can see, it can be fully automated. It would defininately lower the barrier for being able to paticipate in testing, but I am not the one to decide if that would be a desirable goal? Or for that matter, worth the work. Jesper -- ./Jesper Krogh, jesper@krogh.cc, Jabber ID: jesper@jabbernet.dk