* Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

quoted

* Benjamin Herrenschmidt [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 23:10 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

quoted

To some extent, here, the issue is on Linus side and it's up to him (Hey
Linus ! still listening ?) to maybe be more proactive at giving an ack
or nack so that we can get a chance to do that final pass of ironing out
the mechanical bugs before we hit the main tree.

Let me add a little bit more background to my reasoning here and why I
think having this integration testing step is so valuable...

It all boils down to bisection and having a bisectable tree.

I think you are way too concentrated on this particular incident, 
and you are generalizing it into something that is not so in 
practice.

Maybe. But maybe it's representative... so far in this merge 
window, 100% of the powerpc build and runtime breakage upstream 
comes from stuff that didn't get into -next before.

But that's axiomatic, isnt it? linux-next build-tests PowerPC as the 
first in the row of tests - so no change that was in linux-next can 
ever cause a build failure on PowerPC, right?

	Ingo