[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: starting with 2.7
    On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 12:18:36PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
    > I have to say that with a few minor exceptions the introduction of new
    > features hasn't created long term (more than a few days) of problems. And
    > we have had that in previous stable versions as well. New features
    > themselves may not be totally stable, but in most cases they don't break
    > existing features, or are fixed in bk1 or bk2. What worries me is removing
    > features deliberately, and I won't beat that dead horse again, I've said
    > my piece.

    Indeed. Part of the problem is that we don't get that much testing
    with the rc* releases, so there are a lot of problems that don't get
    noticed until after 2.6.x ships. This has been true for both 2.6.9
    and 2.6.10. My personal practice is to never run with 2.6.x release,
    but wait for 2.6.x plus one or 2 days (i.e. bk1 or bk2). The problems
    with this approach are that (1) out-of-tree patches against official
    versions of the kernel (i.e., things like the mppc/mppe patch) don't
    necessarly apply cleanly, and (2) other more destablizing patches get
    folded in right after 2.6.x ships, so there is a chance bk1 or bk2 may
    not be stable.

    We could delay the destablizing changes until after rc1 ships, and
    ship rc1 about 2-3 days after 2.6.x is released, so that the really
    obvious/critical regressions can be addressed immediately. The
    problem with this approach though is that some people will just wait
    until rc1 ships before they start using a new kernel version, and we
    lose the testing we need to stablize the release.

    The real key, as always, is getting users to download and test a
    release. So another approach might be to shorten the time between
    2.6.x and 2.6.x+1 releases, so as to recreate more testing points,
    without training people to wait for -bk1, -bk2, -rc1, etc. before
    trying out the kernel code. This is the model that we used with the
    2.3.x series, where the time between releases was often quite short.
    That worked fairly well, but we stopped doing it when the introduction
    of BitKeeper eliminated the developer synch-up problem. But perhaps
    we've gone too far between 2.6.x releases, and should shorten the time
    in order to force more testing.

    - Ted
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.021 / U:187.352 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site