Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> [180503 22:44]:
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 08:52:29PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 
> > As for -next, me and others stopped reporting bugs in it, because when we do
> > we tend to get flamed for the "noise". Is anyone aware (or cares) that mips
> > and nds32 images don't build ? Soaking clothes in an empty bathtub won't make
> > them wet, and bugs in code which no one builds, much less tests or uses, won't
> > be found.
> 
> You've been flamed for testing -next?  That's not been my experience and
> frankly it's pretty horrifying that it's happening.  Testing is pretty
> much the whole point of -next existing in the first place so you have to
> wonder why people are putting their trees there if they don't want
> testing.  I have seen a few issues with people reporting bugs on old
> versions of -next but otherwise...

Yes I agree testing Linux next is very important. That's the best way for
maintainers to ensure a usable -rc1 after a merge window. And then for
the -rc cycle, there not much of need for chasing bugs to get things working.

Bugs reported for Linux next often seem to get fixed or reverted faster
compared to the -rc cycle too. I think that's because people realize that
their code will not get merged until it's been fixed.

So some daily testing of Linux next can save a lot scrambling after the
merge window :)

Users don't usually upgrade kernels until after later -rc releases or only
after major releases so that probably explains some of the -rc cycle fixes.

Regards,

Tony