Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches

[Tony Lindgren]

* Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> [180508 14:52]:
> * Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> [180508 03:50]:
> > Would I pull down linux-next, and fire up a VM running gce-xfstests?
> > Sure.  But that's not a real-life use case; that's just running canned
> > test cases.  And more often than not, linux-next will be broken while
> > Linus's -rcX tree is just fine; which is why I do most of my ext4
> > testing using patches based on top of -rcX, not based on top of
> > linux-next.
> 
> Ideally we would somehow always end up with an -rc1 that people dare
> to use though for the "prosumer" testing :)

BTW, the reason why I think we all should test Linux next on regular
basis is that it's often "some other people's branches(tm)" that cause
the regressions :) Maybe because their own test cases did not show
any regressions, or because they were unable to test the patches.
Or it's because of some "clean-up" work that's completely untested
on some systems.

And that's how we end up with regressions getting merged into -rc1.

Regards,

Tony