On 4/30/2008 16:31, Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted text
> 
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> <jumps up and down>
>>
>> There should be nothing in 2.6.x-rc1 which wasn't in 2.6.x-mm1!
> 
> The problem I see with both -mm and linux-next is that they tend to be 
> better at finding the "physical conflict" kind of issues (ie the merge 
> itself fails) than the "code looks ok but doesn't actually work" kind of 
> issue.
> 
> Why?
> 
> The tester base is simply too small.
> 
> Now, if *that* could be improved, that would be wonderful, but I'm not 
> seeing it as very likely.

Perhaps we should be clear and simple about what potential testers 
should be running at any given point in time.  With -mm, linux-next, 
linux-2.6, etc, as a newcomer I find it difficult to know where my 
testing time and energy is best directed.

Is linux-next the right thing to be running at this point?  Is there a 
need for testing in a particular tree (netdev, x86, etc)?

Cheers,
Dan

-- 
                     /--------------- - -  -  -   -   -
                     |  Dan Noe
                     |  http://isomerica.net/~dpn/
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/