On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 09:54:53PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> 1. Composed of pull requests sent directly to Linus
>
> 2. Contains branches destined for imminent inclusion by Linus
But this means hours or a day or 2 at most.
Yeah.
> 3. Higher code quality expectation (these are pull requests that
> maintainers expect Linus to pull)
Are people putting things in linux-next that they don't expect to send to Linus? That seems like the greater problem.
They shouldn't. If they do we do indeed have a problem.
> 4. Continuous tree (not daily tags like in linux-next),
> facilitating easier bisection
I'm not sure how useful that is given the very small time window to find bugs.
Same.
>The linus-next tree aims to provide a more stable and testable
>integration point compared to linux-next,
Why not just use linux-next? I don't understand how this is any
different except that it provides very little time to do testing and
will need manual conflict resolutions that have already been done in
linux-next.
Exactly!
How about this, instead: no one sends -rc1 PRs to Linus that didn't go
through -next. Just have a bot that replies to all PRs with a health
check, and Linus can pull it if he thinks it looks good.
Not just -rc1, otherwise agreed.
For example, for a given PR, the bot can report:
- Were the patches CCed to a mailing list?
- A histogram of how long the patches were in next (to show bake times)
- Are any patches associated with test failures? (0day and many other
CIs are already running tests against -next; parse those reports)
We could have a real pre-submit checker! :)
That would be very useful. Items 1 and 2 should be trivial, 3 would
require a bit of work but would still be very useful.