On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: > 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, >
Interesting. Assuming that refers to linux-next, not linux-net, that may explain why linux-next tends to deteriorate. I wonder if I should drop it from my testing as well. I'll be happy to follow whatever the result of this exchange is and do the same. Guenter > 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.
