From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A91D98C for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:06:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0108.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.108]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16F4A115 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:06:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by smtpgrave05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386EB18461D for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:06:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:06:52 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Mark Brown Message-ID: <20160729120652.3ab04112@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20160729155013.GI10376@sirena.org.uk> References: <367437209.fSUZRCC4cu@avalon> <20160728201010.6d1ef149@gandalf.local.home> <26257864.77FIuI985E@avalon> <20160729151247.GG10376@sirena.org.uk> <20160729112019.3c71f697@gandalf.local.home> <20160729155013.GI10376@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , Trond Myklebust , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:50:13 +0100 Mark Brown wrote: > Right, that's one good strategy - but that's still unpredictable for the > user and there's a reasonable class of bugs that don't get flagged up > when breakage causes something to fail to instantiate so catching > regressions is that bit harder. It does also mean we're restricted to > things which don't require any test environment beyond the simple > existence of the hardware which can be a bit restrictive for some > classes of hardware. Well, I don't think there's any answer to that. But I still think it's better than nothing. If nobody has the hardware, do we ever care if it gets tested? ;-) -- Steve