linus-next: improving functional testing for to-be-merged [#linux #kernel] pull requests
https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZxZ8MStt4e8JXeJb@sashalap/
"'[…] Linus Torvalds expressed concerns about the quality of testing that code receives before he pulls it. The subsequent discussion side-tracked to the testability of linux-next, but we didn't directly address Linus's original concern about pre-pull testing quality.
In an attempt to address the concerns, we're trying out a new "linus-next"
tree […]"
2/ @kees replied to the "linus-next" proposal from Sasha and raised a few points I fully agree with, as that proposal felt a bit off for me.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/792F4759-EA33-48B8-9AD0-FA14FA69E86E@kernel.org/
"'Are people putting things in linux-next that they don't expect to send to Linus? That seems like the greater problem.
[…]
Why not just use linux-next? […]
[…] have a bot that replies to all PRs with a health check, and Linus can pull it if he thinks it looks good. […]"
@vbabka and @ljs, that "Are people putting things in linux-next that they don't expect to send to Linus? That seems like the greater problem." from @kees reminded me of a question you might be able to help out with:
From a quick look it seems to me that the "mm-unstable" branch is in -next (via "mm-everything"). Does that contain stuff for the next merge window only, or more experimental stuff as well? It looks like the latter to me.
Well, good points, but fwiw, afaiui only patches that *were* reviewed by one of the official maintainers are supposed to be included in -next. To quote Stephen from https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20240716083116.27f179bd@canb.auug.org.au/
"'You will need to ensure that the patches/commits in your tree/series have
been:
[…]
* reviewed by you (or another maintainer of your subsystem tree),
* successfully unit tested, and
* destined for the current or next Linux merge window."'
@ljs @kees @vbabka sure that's how it works, but most other subsystems *afaics* only add them to their trees included in -next once they are considered ready; all problems that surface later must then be fixed by patches submitted on-top of the subsystem tree, not by sending yet another newer version of the series.
@ljs @kees @kernellogger @vbabka Sane or not, it is pretty much how some subsystems do it. The trees are rolled and re-rolled before submitting to go into `-next`. Though I think fs rebases and rejiggers their trees every time things need to be fixed up instead, similar to mm.