On Wed, 9 May 2018 18:03:46 +0900 Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 10:47:57AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > 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.
Good idea ... I will see what I can do. > True. It's currently only those -fixes branches that people have asked > him to merge separately which isn't as big a proportion of trees as have > them (perhaps fortunately given people's enthusiasm for fixes branches > that don't merge cleanly with their development branches) so we'd also > need to encourage people to add them separately. I currently have 44 such fixes branches. More welcome! -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
pgplKNJQXLB0o.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
