Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 06:03:22PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2018, Daniel Vetter wrote:

> > Since Stephen merges all -fixes branches first, before merging all the
> > -next branches, he already generates that as part of linux-next. All
> > he'd need to do is push that intermediate state out to some
> > linux-fixes branch for consumption by test bots.

> What I do for my trees is that I actually merge the '-fixes' branch (that 
> is scheduled to go to Linus in the 'current' cycle) into my for-next 
> branch as well.

> This has the advantage of (a) getting all the coverage linux-next does (b) 
> seeing any potential merge conflicts early

> Is this not feasible for other trees?

That's obviously best practice which I hope everyone who doesn't have a
separate fix branch in -next is doing but it means that the fixes branch
is not getting tested without the changes in your -next branch, and also
reduces the coverage separate to other people's -next branches.  This
means that there's room for implicit dependencies to slip through.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature