Recent searches
Search options
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.
mm-unstable is everything that _appears_ to be going to Linus because nobody objected to it yet but some stuff might not end up going because it's got issues.
I'm not sure how you're supposed to differentiate between stuff that's eventually going to get reviewed to the point of not being submitted vs. stuff that'll go?
I think this is a bad take to be honest.
Next _should_ contain stuff we _expect_ will go to Linus, which _is_ all of that.
The issue is that people aren't bloody testing next!
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."'
I mean thanks for trying to make stuff get _less_ tested before rc though...
So it's representative of what will be in the next merge window (+ hotfixes not yet upstreamed for rc).
I'd like there to be more of a 'needs a tag from at least someone' rule in mm, but can't control that. It adds workload to people who have to act fast to stop stuff getting pulled in.
If we limited it to mm-stable or something then -next would be _miles_ behind what is going into the next merge window, and you'd also _not_ be stabilising as while not enough people test -next NOBODY tests mm-unstable so it'd become a pretty useless tree.
Again, I think the issue is that more people need to test against -next.
> I think the issue is that more people need to test against -next.
Avoiding "this might eat my data" fears for the testers is very important detail here to realize that – having patches in there that come from a "unstable" branch is enough to scare people away when it comes to mm or filesystems.
So chancing that name might already help.
The whole point of -next is 'here is a snapshot of what is probably coming next, please test it'.
rc's might eat your data too, the whole point is for testing to catch this stuff
eating data is always a risk spectrum (even in stable release there is a risk that it happens) -- and depending on how risky something looks people then decide what they use/test: stable, stable-rc, mainline outside the merge window (that's me currently), mainline all the time, -next.
The less likely the "might eat data" risk is perceived in -next, the more likely people will be willing to help with testing it.
So what you're saying is - during all of those weeks - we must not have build bots on the series, we must not have anything doing even ostensibly small levels of testing, we just wait until rc and ship it as is and that's 'safer' and will make people 'less scared'.
OK.
Which is why I object.... based on personal experience.
I'm a little mystified that you would tag me and I take all this time to respond on this issue to you and now you tell me to ignore it, but OK.
But I do like you so, fine fine... but you owe me a beer bro
