Re: automated test? (was Re: Linux 2.6.17.7)

[Chuck Ebbert]

In-Reply-To: <20060726142932.GE23701@xxxxxxxxx>

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:29:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> The real problem is:
> How do we get some testing coverage of -stable kernels by users to catch 
> issues?
> And compile errors are the least of my worries.

The problem with the current method of releasing patch candidates is
that it's too hard to test them.  I would suggest:

        1.  In addition to posting all the patches separately to L-K,
            post a combined patch.  Have it change the makefile so it
            says 2.6.X.Y-rcZ; that way if an oops gets posted we know
            what the codebase was.  If the patch is too big, put it
            on a website.

        2.  Make the separate patches available on a website in Quilt
            format like Andrew does with -mm.  (Just like (1) above,
            make sure it changes the kernel version.)  This makes it
            easier for testers to fix individual patches.

        3.  Keep posting -rc's until nobody reports problems.

It's easy to generate (1) from (2):

        a.      Untar the quilt patchset into the new directory.
                Make sure the old and new dirs are subdirectories
                of some common directory, are identical and they
                are dist-clean.
        b.      mv broken-out patches
        c.      quilt push -a -q
        d.      cd ..
        e.      diff -uprN -X ignorefiles old new >old.new.patch
                -- ignorefiles contains two lines:
                        .pc
                        patches

-- 
Chuck

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/