![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Alan Cox wrote: >> I fully agree, and firmly believe that the current stabilisation works >> incredibly well for shaking out bugs. My problem is that it doesn't >> work for stabilising features. Either we have to get far more people >> doing feature integration testing before the merge window, or we have to >> accept feature updates after the merge window (for existing features >> that are having stability issues). > > The other alternative is that if Linus won't take updates you ask him to > revert bsg so that you don't get a half baked merge as a result of this. > I'm not sure that is a good path to follow either however. Like everything else in life, it's a balance. If something is clearly half-baked and requires a bunch of post-rc1 changes just to be usable, a revert might make a lot of sense. It's questions of: how much further change is required, how invasive are those changes, how half-baked and incomplete is the feature really, what is the downside of a revert, ... Jeff - 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: 2007-08-07 16:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||