On 2012-01-21 15:12+0100 Daniel Vetter wrote: > drm-intel-testing is drm-intel-next and drm-intel-fixes merged together > (as the time of when I've pushed things out). Gordon Jin said that he > prefers to qa one single branch and that qa will take the job of finding > out whether an issue has been introduced in -fixes or in -next. I agree > that it makes more sense to test everything together, otherwise you'll > miss some of the bugfixes in -fixes. As an Intel graphics user whose number-one concern is stability, I have to make a comment here. I fully appreciate that the top priority for qa should be the cutting edge so that Intel developers get quick feedback on their changes. But that leaves the -fixes branch untested _on its own_ by qa, and I urge Gordon Jin to rethink that decision. After all, the -fixes branch is quite important to the end user of Intel graphics since it generally propagates sooner than -intel-testing to the users. Also, doing qa for both -intel-testing and -fixes should not double the burden on the qa group since -fixes is much less volatile so doesn't have to be tested nearly as often as -intel-testing. In sum, my feeling is that if the -fixes branch is to have any separate meaning at all, it has to go through the same qa process (although not as often) as drm-intel-testing. My $0.02. Alan __________________________ Alan W. Irwin Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca). Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state implementation for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); the Time Ephemerides project (timeephem.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting software package (plplot.sf.net); the libLASi project (unifont.org/lasi); the Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net); and the Linux Brochure Project (lbproject.sf.net). __________________________ Linux-powered Science __________________________
