Pekka J Enberg wrote:
quoted text
> Well, I only really have three kinds of patches: (1) testing, (2) 
> for-linus asap (fixes in the middle of a release cycle) and (3) for-linus 
> when the merge window opens. Up until now, I've put (1) in for-mm and 
> after enough exposure (and no bug reports) they graduate into (2) or (3).
> 
> So the problem here is where I put the patches in category (1)?

(1) Testing = (1a) testing isolated changes, (1b) testing in integration 
with other pending changes.  -next is for the latter kind of tests, 
AFAIU with the primary goal of sorting out integration related issues. 
For several reasons --- for example one reason which I saw mentioned was 
to attract more testers than maybe -mm had lately --- we have been asked 
to submit code to -next which has passed (1a)-type testing and had 
appropriate review.

Needless to say, many of us have difficulties to acquire resources 
[time, hardware, test cases/ workloads] for (1) or (1a).  OTOH, 
borrowing -next or -mm for too early test stages will not pay out for 
any of us in the long run.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- -=-= --=-=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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/