In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
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 [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]
