Sure thing, we'll see how we can automate this. Any specific format we should adhere to? (of course we will include the tag that was used and architecture). On 2024.12.23, 18:19, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: Hi Alex, On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 18:20:50 +0000 "Bondarev, Alex" <alexbnd@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:alexbnd@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 04:16:03PM +0000, Bondarev, Alex wrote: > > I'm part of a team in AWS that uses the linux-next branch with canonical's > > ppa to test for build success. > > git: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git > > ppa: ppa:canonical-kernel-team/ppa > > > As a result of this daily test (we try the latest available at time of > > testing), we have almost immediate knowledge of the "goodness" of the branch > > (if the machine doesn't boot after update of if the compilation fails). We > > are currently running build on aarch64 and x86_64 types. > > > > The question is should we notify via a mailing list or a single destination > > about this failure? Will it improve the detection time for a bad merge? Thanks for testing! Notifications should be sent to linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and cc'd to linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and any developers or maintainers that you think may be involved with the code causing problems. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
