* Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com> [180508 14:52]: > * Theodore Y. Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> [180508 03:50]: > > Would I pull down linux-next, and fire up a VM running gce-xfstests? > > Sure. But that's not a real-life use case; that's just running canned > > test cases. And more often than not, linux-next will be broken while > > Linus's -rcX tree is just fine; which is why I do most of my ext4 > > testing using patches based on top of -rcX, not based on top of > > linux-next. > > Ideally we would somehow always end up with an -rc1 that people dare > to use though for the "prosumer" testing :)
BTW, the reason why I think we all should test Linux next on regular basis is that it's often "some other people's branches(tm)" that cause the regressions :) Maybe because their own test cases did not show any regressions, or because they were unable to test the patches. Or it's because of some "clean-up" work that's completely untested on some systems. And that's how we end up with regressions getting merged into -rc1. Regards, Tony
