On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Theodore Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:38:42AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Sometimes the branches on linux-next are experimental crap. If someone >> adds an experimental memory allocator to linux-next before discovering >> it causes all kinds of problems I don't want bug reports about my code >> not being able to allocate memory because the memory allocator was bad. >> >> If you don't have the resources to test the individual branches of >> linux-next please just test Linus's tree. That will be much more >> meaningful and productive. > > I have to agree with Eric here, the reason why Fengguang Wu's 0-day > testing robot is much better received by developers is that he does > not test linux-net,
I will remove linux-next if there is a general agreement that it's not useful. Though, I've heard different opinions from kernel developers as well. I will write a separate email asking what branches should be tested.
