On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 08:13:19AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:

> it works". We still have a long way to go to get real QA testing. As I
> suggested earlier, we'll have to find a way to convince companies to actively
> invest in QA.

There *is* some stuff going on there (slowly) with kernelci.org
including some more active work, but definitely more investment is
indeed needed.  I am somewhat hopeful that it'll be like a lot of the
other testing things where once we start to see some results becoming
available there will be a bit of a snowball effect and we'll start to
see more people getting involved (I know I wouldn't have been running a
build bot if I hadn't wanted things other build bots weren't offering at
the time).

> > There's also the volume of stable trees to consider here - we've got a
> > large number of stable trees which seem to be maintained in different
> > ways with different tooling.  One big advantage from my point of view
> > as a maintainer with the current model is that I don't have to figure
> > out which I care about or anything like that.

> The proliferation of stable trees (or rather, how to avoid it) might be
> one of the parts of the puzzle. Yes, there are way too many right now.

OTOH if people want to run a given kernel version it's nice for them to
have a place to collaborate and share fixes.