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

From: Shuah Khan
Date: Thu Oct 31 2024 - 15:08:22 EST


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