![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Why would a shorter cycle be better? What are we trying to achieve? I don't think a shorter cycle is necessarily better, but I think we could try having a more "directed" cycle, and perhaps merge certain specific things rather than everything. That would possibly _cause_ a shorter cycle, if only because the problems are hopefully more focused from the fact that we merged with a certain focus. Of course, it would likely just frustrate the people who didn't get merged, and would need to wait for the next cycle. So it might be a net negative, even if we'd bring individual cycles in a bit. > > The cycles seem to be stretching out again, and I don't really think > > it's worth it to hold up the entire kernel for every single piddly > > little regression to get fixed. We'll _never_ be perfect, even if we > > weren't slackers. I think that's true. 2.6.18 got delayed partly due to me beign away, but I also think that it then got delayed too much afterwards too, just because I felt a bit nervous about having been away ;) So it definitely stretched out too much. Whether there is a lot we can do about it, I dunno. In many ways, the real issue is simply that we have a lot of changes. And people are _never_ as interested in the testing part as they were in writing new code.. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-09-21 07:27 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||