Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762764AbZFLNwK (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:52:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934347AbZFLNtz (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:49:55 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:59803 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934314AbZFLNtx (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:49:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:49:40 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linus , Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, ppc-dev Subject: Re: linux-next: origin tree build failure Message-ID: <20090612134940.GD32105@elte.hu> References: <20090612102427.32582baa.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1244768406.7172.1.camel@pasglop> <20090612092054.GB32052@elte.hu> <1244799197.7172.106.camel@pasglop> <20090612125335.GH31845@elte.hu> <1244812224.7172.146.camel@pasglop> <1244813397.7172.156.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1244813397.7172.156.camel@pasglop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1336 Lines: 33 * Benjamin Herrenschmidt 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. Even in this particular case, there's just 3 other commit points in the Git tree between commit 8a1ca8c (the breakage on PowerPC) and e14112d (the fix). We'll have up to 10,000 commits. I bisect on an almost daily basis, and i'm not seeing unreasonable problems. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/