On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:57:30AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:28:37AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > > > Oh yes, this is going to be a rough one :) > > > > > > > Yes, this one looks really bad. Not only build failures, but various architectures > > > which do build fine don't even boot (including x86). You might want to have a look > > > into my build system to get an idea, though I expect that 0day will keep you busy > > > for a while. Let me know when you need specific feedback and/or help with specific > > > problems. > > > > Thanks, I think the new requirement for taking Sasha's patches is that > > they at least pass 0-day first before sending them to me... > > > > As I just mentioned in the other thread, I think this is going a bit too far. > Browsing through the patches, many of them don't have a stable or Fixes: tag, > but just mention "fix" somewhere. It almost looks like many are being applied > shotgun-wise, without real idea if the problem solved really applies to the > target release. > > It is quite likely that the upcoming stable release will cause a lot of > regressions. This in turn may jeopardize my last two years of work trying > to convince the rest of the ChromeOS team to see the benefits of stable > release merges. It may put our entire stable release merge strategy > at risk. Yeah, this set is making me worried as well. I'm going to see how 0-day and your builders run on the trees today. I'm going to go have beers with Sasha tomorrow evening and we'll talk about this. I might just drop most of these from the queue... thanks, greg k-h
