Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the net tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi David,

On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:50:53 -0400 (EDT) David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I do have a question though, it is honestly really that much easier to
> revert a whole days worth of changes (and therefore not get the code
> tested at all) than to simply add the obvious one liner?

Actually, for me it is.  I have a script that does the "use yesterday's
version" for me.  To fix (even a one liner) means bringing up an editor,
commiting, creating the patch and then recommiting it (an implementation
detail) and recording that I need to keep (automatically) applying the
patch in case the maintainer doesn't react quickly.

In this particular case I have been telling people to include vmalloc.h
(and other things like slab.h) over and over for years ... its a pain
that x86 builds indirectly include so much stuff.

> It seems to me to be absolutely the wrong tradeoff in these situations.

I guess for the "current/fixes" tree during the merge window, you are
right.  For the "normal" trees, does a delay of (usually) one day really
matter?

I used to fix all this stuff and it added considerably to the length of
my work day (which currently can be up to 16 hours long) :-(

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature