Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] doc/maintainer: Add policy for new functionality

[Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>]

Hi!
> >>> The issue is we may forget to merge patch sets for features which are
> >>> included (a far worse result). It's more stuff waiting around in the
> >>> queue. At the least we should have a procedure for tracking them (like
> >>> tagging github issues for review at each mainline release).
> >>>
> >>> If a test requires a kernel config which doesn't exist in mainline we
> >>> could also look for that automatically.
> >>
> >> The main issue is that if we happen to release LTP meanwhile with a test
> >> for a syscall that didn't get included in the mainline in the end we
> >> have released LTP that is supposed to be stable and the test will start
> >> to fail when the syscall number is allocated for something else which
> >> will happen sooner or later.
> > I know a example that is quotactl_path syscall.
> >>
> 
> If the real issue is LTP releases, then why not exclude tests for new
> features from them? I assume it's only a small number of commits which
> would need to be removed. Possibly we could tag them in git when merging
> so it is not a lot more work for whoever does the release (namely
> Cyril) to create a branch without them.

That sounds too complex for a test or two we are usually getting during
the release cycle.

Note that people who contribute the functionality to the kernel are used
to wait for next release window, kernel releases are aprox. twice as
fast as LTP.

> My main concern is this will throw up a barrier to motivated
> contributors working on the cutting edge.

So far really nobody complained, which may not be a good metric. But
still unless there is a evidence that this happens I wouldn't consider
spending effort on this.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp