Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 10 May 2018 18:03:22 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
To:     Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, "w@1wt.eu" <w@1wt.eu>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uEWYmhA3owSeYM9tNA0tpMm5=4Yqda2j=VfMWi7i8ya8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1805101802150.27054@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
References: <20180501205448.GE10479@thunk.org> <20180501211551.GI2714@sirena.org.uk> <CAKMK7uHjA27K8y-kwYFyhLy3cSkJJw8Oe1gP=3hZXdfxcWAcNQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180502194632.GB18390@sasha-vm> <20180503020550.GP2714@sirena.org.uk> <20180503031000.GC29205@thunk.org>
 <0276fcda-0385-8f22-dbdb-e063f7ed8bbe@roeck-us.net> <20180503224217.GR2714@sirena.org.uk> <20180503230905.GA98604@atomide.com> <CAPDyKFrCKkRHwOh-7yfFbvMp+Ykhs7oXrDwhTShSPvUBvpn2ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180509084440.GW13402@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAKMK7uEWYmhA3owSeYM9tNA0tpMm5=4Yqda2j=VfMWi7i8ya8w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 9 May 2018, Daniel Vetter wrote:

> >> Then, why don't we have a pre-integration tree for fixes? That would
> >> at least simply automated testing of fixes separately from new
> >> material.
> >
> >> Perhaps this has already been discussed, and concluded and it's not
> >> worth it, then apologize for my ignorance.
> >
> > I think this is an excellent idea, copying in Stephen for his input.
> > I'm currently on holiday but unless someone convinces me it's a terrible
> > idea I'm willing to at least give it a go on a trial basis once I'm back
> > home.
> 
> Since Stephen merges all -fixes branches first, before merging all the
> -next branches, he already generates that as part of linux-next. All
> he'd need to do is push that intermediate state out to some
> linux-fixes branch for consumption by test bots.

What I do for my trees is that I actually merge the '-fixes' branch (that 
is scheduled to go to Linus in the 'current' cycle) into my for-next 
branch as well.

This has the advantage of (a) getting all the coverage linux-next does (b) 
seeing any potential merge conflicts early

Is this not feasible for other trees?

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs