Re: [Xen-devel] [linux-mingo-tip-master test] 17105: regressions - FAIL

[Sander Eikelenboom <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tuesday, March 5, 2013, 5:29:22 PM, you wrote:

> Sander Eikelenboom writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [linux-mingo-tip-master test] 
> 17105: regressions - FAIL"):
>> Tuesday, March 5, 2013, 5:13:10 PM, you wrote:
>> > I poked hpa about it and he mentioned that Ingo sporadically updates
>> > his tree.  So going to poke him in a week since v3.9-rc1 just
>> > came out.
>> 
>> Would it be an idea to setup a branch (in konrad's tree) that follows 
>> tip-master, but allows konrad to apply patches that are "under way" 
>> (accepted but not yet applied)  and are important (needed to boot etc ?) and 
>> test that one instead ?

> That would be simple from my pov.  I don't have an opinion about it.

It's as always a tradeoff, an extra burden for Konrad, but less wastage of test 
resources.
Could be something like a "linux-next" but then only for Xen-patches applied on 
top of branch tracking perhaps the most important tree (x86).
Testing linux-next it self could probably hang on to many non Xen related 
problems.

> Ian.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel