On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:01:25AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > I think the main difference between these review announcements > and true CI is what kind of guaranty you get for a release candidate > from NOT getting a test failure response, which is one of the main > reasons that where holding back xfs stable fixes for so long. That's not true, I know to wait for some responses before doing a release of these kernels. > Best effort testing in timely manner is good, but a good way to > improve confidence in stable kernel releases is a publicly > available list of tests that the release went through. We have that, you aren't noticing them... > Do you have any such list of tests that you *know* are being run, > that you (or Sasha) run yourself or that you actively wait on an > ACK from a group before a release? Yes, look at the responses to those messages from Guenter, Shuah, Jon, kernel.ci, Red Hat testing, the Linaro testing teams, and a few other testers that come and go over time. Those list out all of the tests that are being run, and the results of those tests. I also get a number of private responses from different build systems from companies that don't want to post in public, which is fine, I understand the issues involved with that. I would argue that the stable releases are better tested than Linus's releases for that reason alone :) thanks, greg k-h
