[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.21

    On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > There is a conflict between Linus trying to release kernels every
    > 2 months and releasing with few regressions.


    Regressions _increase_ with longer release cycles. They don't get fewer.

    The fact is, we have a -stable series for a reason. The reason is that the
    normal development kernel can work in three ways:

    (a) long release cycles, with two subcases:
    (a1) huge changes (ie a "long development series". This is what we
    used to have. There's no way to even track the regressions,
    because things just change too much.
    (a2) keep the development limited, just stretch out the
    "stabilization phase". This simply *does*not*work*. You might
    want it to work, but it's against human psychology. People
    get bored, and start wasting their time discussing esoteric
    scheduler issues which weren't regressions at all.
    (b) Short and staggered release cycle: keep changes limited (like a2),
    but recognize when it gets counter-productive, and cut a release so
    that the stable team can continue with it, while most developers (who
    wouldn't have worked on the stable kernel _anyway_) don't get

    And yes, we've gone for (b). With occasional "I'm not taking any half-way
    scary things at _all_" releases, like 2.6.20 was.

    > Trying to avoid regressions might in the worst case result in an -rc12
    > and 4 months between releases. If the focus is on avoiding regressions
    > this has to be accepted.

    No. You are ignoring the reality of development. The reality is that you
    have to balance things. If you have a four-month release cycle, where
    three and a half months are just "wait for reports to trickle in from
    testers", you simply won't get _anything_ done. People will throw their
    hands up in frustration and go somewhere else.

    > And a serious delay of the next regression-merge window due to unfixed
    > regressions might even have the positive side effect of more developers
    > becoming interested in fixing the current regressions for getting their
    > shiny new regressions^Wfeatures faster into Linus' tree.

    No. Quite the reverse.

    If we have a problem right now

    > 0 regressions is never realistic (especially since many regressions
    > might not be reported during -rc), but IMHO we could do much better than
    > what happened in 2.6.20 and 2.6.21.

    2.6.20 was actually really good. Yes, it had some regressions, but I do
    believe that it was one of the least buggy releases we've had. The process

    2.6.21 was much less pleasant, but the timer thing really was

    > I'm not satisfied with the result, and the world won't stop turning when
    > I'm not tracking 2.6.22-rc regressions.

    True. However, it's sad that you feel like you can't bother to track them.
    They were _very_ useful. The fact that you felt they weren't is just
    becasue I think you had unrealistic expectations, and you think that the
    stable people shouldn't have to have anything to do.

    You're maintaining 2.6.16 yourself - do you not see what happens when you
    decide that "zero regressions" is the target? You have to stop
    development. And while that may sound like a good thing at any particular
    time, it's a total *disaster* in the long run (not even very long,
    actually: in the two-to-three release cycle kind of run), because while
    you are in a "regression fix" mode, people still go on developing, and
    you're just causing problems for the _next_ release by holding things up
    too long.

    That's the *real* reality: 5 to 7 _million_ lines of diffs in a release
    every two to three months. Do you really think those changes stop just
    because of a release process? No. If you drag out the releases to be 4+
    months, you'll just have 10-15 million lines of changes instead (or, more
    likely, you'll have developers who can't be bothered any more, and you may
    have just 2 million lines, and three years later you have a kernel that
    isn't relevant any more. Look at any of the other Unixes).

    In other words, there's a _reason_ we have staggered development. We have
    the "crazy development trees" (aka -mm and various other trees), we have
    the "development tree" (aka Linus' tree), and we have the -stable tree. If
    the stable tree has a dozen known issues that they'll have to sort out
    over the next two months, that's *fine*. That's kind of the point of the
    stable tree.

    And you would helpe them with the 2.6.22-stable releases if you'd maintain
    that list. Even if it is _designed_ not to go down to zero.

    I suspect that you got overly optimistic from the fact that 2.6.20 really
    _was_ an easy release. It was designed that way. You feel that it was bad
    or average, but that's actually because of _your_ unrealistic
    expectations, not becasue there was anything wrong with 2.6.20.

    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: 2007-04-26 17:51    [W:0.027 / U:21.232 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site