On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 23:10 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > To some extent, here, the issue is on Linus side and it's up to him (Hey > > > Linus ! still listening ?) to maybe be more proactive at giving an ack > > > or nack so that we can get a chance to do that final pass of ironing out > > > the mechanical bugs before we hit the main tree. > > > > Let me add a little bit more background to my reasoning here and why I > > think having this integration testing step is so valuable... > > > > It all boils down to bisection and having a bisectable tree. > > I think you are way too concentrated on this particular incident, > and you are generalizing it into something that is not so in > practice. Maybe. But maybe it's representative... so far in this merge window, 100% of the powerpc build and runtime breakage upstream comes from stuff that didn't get into -next before. Some of the runtime breakage in powerpc-next comes from my own bugs, indeed, and fortunately I caught it before I asked Linus to pull. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
