Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:57:00 +0200 | From | "Michal Piotrowski" <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.21 |
| |
On 30/04/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:33:30AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 00:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >... > > > And it failed because many regressions still stayed unfixed and some > > > even undebugged. > > > > No it failed not. It is not perfect. Way more bugs, which have been > > fixed or are in the debugging process, would have been unnoticed and > > ignored otherwise. > >... > > It depends on what you consider failure and what you consider success.
I hope that this discussion about bugs will change something in Linux regressions front.
Huge thanks to you for that.
> > For me, it failed. Not because it wasn't perfect, but because we could > have done much better with fixing the known regressions, and also by not > introducing several regressions between the last -rc and the final > kernel (and people who did test -rc7 and would most likely also have > tested an -rc8 ran into them). > > > tglx > > cu > Adrian
Regards, Michal
-- Michal K. K. Piotrowski Kernel Monkeys (http://kernel.wikidot.com/start) - 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/
| |