* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. But that's axiomatic, isnt it? linux-next build-tests PowerPC as the first in the row of tests - so no change that was in linux-next can ever cause a build failure on PowerPC, right? Ingo -- 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
