[Intel-gfx] Updated -next

[Alan W. Irwin]

On 2012-01-21 15:12+0100 Daniel Vetter wrote:

> drm-intel-testing is drm-intel-next and drm-intel-fixes merged together
> (as the time of when I've pushed things out). Gordon Jin said that he
> prefers to qa one single branch and that qa will take the job of finding
> out whether an issue has been introduced in -fixes or in -next. I agree
> that it makes more sense to test everything together, otherwise you'll
> miss some of the bugfixes in -fixes.

As an Intel graphics user whose number-one concern is stability, I
have to make a comment here.  I fully appreciate that the top priority
for qa should be the cutting edge so that Intel developers get quick
feedback on their changes.  But that leaves the -fixes branch untested
_on its own_ by qa, and I urge Gordon Jin to rethink that decision.
After all, the -fixes branch is quite important to the end user of
Intel graphics since it generally propagates sooner than
-intel-testing to the users. Also, doing qa for both -intel-testing
and -fixes should not double the burden on the qa group since -fixes
is much less volatile so doesn't have to be tested nearly as often as
-intel-testing.

In sum, my feeling is that if the -fixes branch is to have any
separate meaning at all, it has to go through the same qa process
(although not as often) as drm-intel-testing.

My $0.02.

Alan
__________________________
Alan W. Irwin

Astronomical research affiliation with Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Victoria (astrowww.phys.uvic.ca).

Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state
implementation for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); the Time
Ephemerides project (timeephem.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting
software package (plplot.sf.net); the libLASi project
(unifont.org/lasi); the Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net);
and the Linux Brochure Project (lbproject.sf.net).
__________________________

Linux-powered Science
__________________________