Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.5.60 cheerleading... | From | Paul Larson <> | Date | 13 Feb 2003 12:04:43 -0600 |
| |
On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 11:11, John Bradford wrote: > > > Nothing stops people from LTPtesting the -bk nightlies. > > > Sure, they won't catch the last-minute-torvalds-breaks-the-compile > > > type bugs, but for the most part it should be useful enough info. > > Already been doing that for a long time now. How about a quick note out > > to lkml that says "The current bk is what I'm going to release at <NN > > Time> today unless someone gives me a good reason not to."? > > Why? That would just delay releases, and make more work for Linus. What I just suggested would be a short 1 line note to lkml. I know he's very busy, but what's that, like 10 seconds?
> If a release is badly broken, another one is usually quick to follow > it, anyway. There's usually a lag of 30min to an hour between the last changeset and the the one that changes the version tag anyway. I would hope/assume(dangerous) this is when it's beeing built and tested. One more script to that mix that runs a subset of ltp might add an additional 5 min. Alternatively, a note of intent to lkml might add a few seconds to that delay.
If I counted timezones etc. right, here's a quick picture of the number of minutes between the last changeset and the changeset that tagged it with the version number: 2.5.60 52 min. 2.5.59 42 min. 2.5.58 31 min. 2.5.57 16 min. *** 2.5.58 was release something like 12 hours later
Is it less work to do a few minutes of extra testing, or go through another release in the same day?
-Paul Larson [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |