From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:18:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190213091803.GA2308@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxgQGCSbhppBfhHQmDDXS3TGmgB4m=Vp3nyyWTFiyv6z6g@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:01:25AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> I think the main difference between these review announcements
> and true CI is what kind of guaranty you get for a release candidate
> from NOT getting a test failure response, which is one of the main
> reasons that where holding back xfs stable fixes for so long.
That's not true, I know to wait for some responses before doing a
release of these kernels.
> Best effort testing in timely manner is good, but a good way to
> improve confidence in stable kernel releases is a publicly
> available list of tests that the release went through.
We have that, you aren't noticing them...
> Do you have any such list of tests that you *know* are being run,
> that you (or Sasha) run yourself or that you actively wait on an
> ACK from a group before a release?
Yes, look at the responses to those messages from Guenter, Shuah, Jon,
kernel.ci, Red Hat testing, the Linaro testing teams, and a few other
testers that come and go over time. Those list out all of the tests
that are being run, and the results of those tests.
I also get a number of private responses from different build systems
from companies that don't want to post in public, which is fine, I
understand the issues involved with that.
I would argue that the stable releases are better tested than Linus's
releases for that reason alone :)
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-13 9:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-12 17:00 [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees Sasha Levin
2019-02-12 21:32 ` Steve French
2019-02-13 7:20 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-02-13 7:37 ` Greg KH
2019-02-13 9:01 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-02-13 9:18 ` Greg KH [this message]
2019-02-13 19:25 ` Sasha Levin
2019-02-13 19:52 ` Greg KH
2019-02-13 20:14 ` James Bottomley
2019-02-15 1:50 ` Sasha Levin
2019-02-15 2:48 ` James Bottomley
2019-02-16 18:28 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-02-21 15:34 ` Luis Chamberlain
2019-02-21 18:52 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-03-20 3:46 ` Jon Masters
2019-03-20 5:06 ` Greg KH
2019-03-20 6:14 ` Jon Masters
2019-03-20 6:28 ` Greg KH
2019-03-20 6:32 ` Jon Masters
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190213091803.GA2308@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=smfrench@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).