On Tue, Feb 07 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Look, it's really simple: lets say I make a change that has to do with
> > PM, you do a quick compile test with and _without_ PM just to check you
> > didn't screw anything up with that change. You change reiserfs acl
> > stuff, you do a quick compile test with and without that configured.
> >
> > It's a pretty standard procedure, and contrary to what you think, it
> > _is_ required before submitting a patch. No one is asking anyone to
> > check all possible configure options, but the interesting data set is
> > typically extremely easy to guess looking at a change.
>
> <rofl>
>
> bix:/usr/src/op> find patches -name '*build-fix*' | wc -l
> 533
>
> bix:/usr/src/op> find patches -name '*fix.patch' | wc -l
> 5109
>
> A lot of people don't make the slightest effort. But it's not a big
> problem, really. Silly build errors are reported early and are almost
> always trivial to fix. The major drawback is that they can wreck a -mm
> release for many testers.
That's precisely the problem, it may be really simple to fix but often
will stop people from testing.
Your fix count probably isn't totally accurate either, I bet a lot of
these are fixups due to conflicts with other patches. I'm talking about
the fact that someone sends Linus a patch which doesn't compile for the
case you could (and should) have trivially checked. A little edumacation
never hurt :-)
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
