[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux v2.6.27-rc1

    On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Jesse Barnes wrote:
    > I think linux-next has been a *huge* help. It's been great at catching merge
    > conflicts and build bugs (though not so much when you don't use it[1]!), and
    > Stephen is really easy to work with. So I, for one, would love to see it
    > continue.

    I don't think anybody wants it to go away. The question in my mind is more
    along the way of how/whether it should be changed. There was some
    bickering about patches that weren't there, and some about how _partial_
    series were there but then the finishing touches broke things.

    I don't personally really think that it's reasonable to expect everything
    to be in -next (but hey, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise). And don't
    get me wrong - it certainly wouldn't bother _me_ to have everything go
    through next, since it just makes it likelier that I have less to worry

    BUT. I do think 'next' as it is has a few issues that either need to be
    fixed (unlikely - it's not the point of next) or just need to be aired as
    issues and understood:

    - I don't think it does 'quality control', and I think that's pretty

    Now, admittedly I don't look much at the patches of people I trust
    either (that's what the whole point of that 'trust' is, after all - to
    make me not be the part that limits development speed), but that's
    still different from 'largely automated merging'.

    So I _do_ check the things that aren't obvious "maintainer works on his
    own subsystem" or are so core that I really feel like I need to know
    what's up. I seldom actually say "that's so broken that I refuse to
    pull it", but I tend to do that a couple of times per release.

    That may not sound like much, but it's enough to make me worry about
    'next'. I worry that 'it has been in next' has become a code-word for
    "pull this, because it's good", and I'm not at all convinced that
    'next' sees any real critical checking.

    - I don't think the 'next' thing works as well for the occasional
    developer that just has a few patches pending as it works for subsystem
    maintainers that are used to it.

    IOW, I think 'next' needs enough infrastructure setup from the
    developer side that I don't think it's reasonable for _everything_ to
    go through next. And that in turn means that I'm not entirely thrilled
    when people then complain "that wasn't in next". I think people should
    accept that not everything will be in next.

    But I don't think either of the above issues is a 'problem' - I just think
    they should be acknowledged. I think 'next' is a good way for the big
    subsystem developers to be able to see problems early, but I really hope
    that nobody will _ever_ see next as a "that's the way into Linus' tree",
    because for the above two reasons I do not think it can really work that


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-07-29 19:05    [W:0.027 / U:10.588 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site