Jeff Garzik wrote:
quoted text
> Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> By the way, if you do want to make that rule, then there's a really
>> easy way to do it - just pull linux-next, and make that one pull be
>> the entire merge window. :)
> 
> That's a unique and interesting idea...

Full ack.

Especially if there was some kind of "pre-merge linux-next freeze" where 
people (arch maintainers, kernel testers) would be actively invited to do 
pre-merge testing.

During that period only changes that fix reported issues (be it build issues 
or regressions) would be allowed:
- either a revert of the problematic commit
- or a targeted fix

This could even hugely improve the bisectability of mainline after the merge 
as such changes could be merged/rebased into the subsystem tree _before_ 
Linus pulls them into mainline.

Currently I avoid -next and -mm and I also don't do any merge window 
testing. Why? Too much flux, too many issues, too much energy required.
But if there was some sort of pre-merge call for testing of an identifiable 
and relatively stable tree, I would definitely participate in that and be 
willing to spend time to bisect the hell out of any issues I'd find.

Cheers,
FJP
--
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/