On Wed, 9 May 2018, Daniel Vetter 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.
What I do for my trees is that I actually merge the '-fixes' branch (that is scheduled to go to Linus in the 'current' cycle) into my for-next branch as well. This has the advantage of (a) getting all the coverage linux-next does (b) seeing any potential merge conflicts early Is this not feasible for other trees? -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs
