Re: linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged pull requests

[Shuah Khan]

On 10/23/24 03:19, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 10:36:20 +0200
> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > To put it this way. The bugs I'm fixing was for code in linux-next
> > > where the bugs were never found. They only appeared when they went into
> > > Linus's tree. So why put the fixes in linux-next, if it didn't catch
> > > the bugs I fixed in the first place?
> >
> > Hmmm...
> >
> > Your arguments sound very similar to those being used in recent
> > discussions about not posting patches for public review...
> >
> > Please follow the process! ;-)
>
> What process?
>
> Note, I probably post everything to mailing lists more than anyone
> else (besides stable). All my commits come from mailing lists. Even
> things I change myself. I always send out the change to a list. Then I
> use patchwork to pull it into my tree.
>
> After the changes are tested, I send out the patches *again* with my
> [for-next] tags in the subject. If it's a fix for Linus, it goes out as
> a "[for-linus]" tag. These emails automatically update my patchwork
> status.
>
> No change goes into Linus's tree from me that hasn't been sent out
> publicly.
>
> But pushing to linux-next for a day or two, what does that give me?

I don't send pull requests without soaking it in next for 2 to 3 days.
It helps me find problems related to things something breaking on an
architecture and/or config.

I find next very helpful in finding merge conflicts and build/test
breakages.

thanks,
-- Shuah