On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 04:21:26PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> Then, why don't we have a pre-integration tree for fixes? That would
>>> at least simply automated testing of fixes separately from new
>>> material.
>>
>>> Perhaps this has already been discussed, and concluded and it's not
>>> worth it, then apologize for my ignorance.
>>
>> I think this is an excellent idea, copying in Stephen for his input.
>> I'm currently on holiday but unless someone convinces me it's a terrible
>> idea I'm willing to at least give it a go on a trial basis once I'm back
>> home.
>
> Since Stephen merges all -fixes branches first, before merging all the
> -next branches, he already generates that as part of linux-next. All
> he'd need to do is push that intermediate state out to some
> linux-fixes branch for consumption by test bots.
+1
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
