Re: [bug] build failures, git trees

[Randy Dunlap]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:58:37 -0700 (PDT) David Miller wrote:

<deletia>

> If you really cared, you would run your randconfig system on, for
> example, the linux-next and -mm trees, which I've specifically
> suggested and you've specifically ignored.  And there is no
> coincidence to that.

I do randconfigs on -mm and linux-next.  I report most* of the
build problems ... and as far as I can tell, they are mostly
ignored (especially in linux-next).

*: I don't report Voyager/Visual WS/NUMA-Q build errors.
Maybe they will just disappear one day.
I also don't report drivers/media/ build errors. They are too easy
to reproduce.  :(

IMO having -mm and linux-next is a diluting factor+.  They dilute
both build and boot testing of the other one and of mainline
-rcs.  Yes, they have their purposes, but it would be Very Good
if we could get to the point of having -mm built on top of
linux-next (e.g.) instead of it just being a separate tree.

+: Yes, there are other diluting factors, like having over 100 git
trees that someone may potentially request testing of.

---
~Randy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/