lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: new dev model (was Re: Default cache_hot_time value back to 10ms)
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >>Any thoughts about making -rc's into -pre's, and doing real -rc's?
> >
> >
> > I think what we have is OK. The idea is that once 2.6.9 is released we
> > merge up all the well-tested code which is sitting in various trees and has
> > been under test for a few weeks. As soon as all that well-tested code is
> > merged, we go into -rc. So we're pipelining the development of 2.6.10 code
> > with the stabilisation of 2.6.9.
> >
> > If someone goes and develops *new* code after the release of, say, 2.6.9
> > then tough tittie, it's too late for 2.6.9: we don't want new code - we
> > want old-n-tested code. So your typed-in-after-2.6.9 code goes into
> > 2.6.11.
> >
> > That's the theory anyway. If it means that it takes a long time to get
>
> This is damned frustrating :( Reality is _far_ divorced from what you
> just described.

s/far/a bit/

> Major developers such as David and Al don't have trees that see wide
> testing, their code only sees wide testing once it hits mainline. See
> this message from David,
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-netdev&m=109648930728731&w=2
>

Yes, networking has been an exception. I think this has been acceptable
thus far because historically networking has tended to work better than
other parts of the kernel. Although the fib_hash stuff was a bit of a
fiasco.

> In particular, I think David's point about -mm being perceived as overly
> experimental is fair.

I agree - -mm breaks too often. You wouldn't believe the crap people throw
at me :(. But a lot of problems get fixed this way too.

> Recent experience seems to directly counter the assertion that only
> well-tested code is landing in mainline, and it's not hard to pick
> through the -rc changelogs to find non-trivial, non-bugfix modifications
> to existing code.

Once we hit -rc2 we shouldn't be doing that.

> My own experience with netdev-2.6 bears this out as
> well: I have several personal examples of bugs sitting in netdev (and
> thus -mm) for quite a while, only being noticed when the code hits mainline.

yes, I've had a couple of those. Not too many, fortunately. But having
bugs leak in mainline is OK - we expect that. As long as it wasn't late in
the cycle. If it was late in the cycle then, well,
bad-call-won't-do-that-again.

> Linus's assertion that "calling it -rc means developers should calm
> down" (implying we should start concentrating on bug fixing rather than
> more-fun stuff) is equally fanciful.
>
> Why is it so hard to say "only bugfixes"?

(It's not "only bugfixes". It's "only bugfixes, completely new stuff and
documentation/comment fixes).

But yes. When you see this please name names and thwap people.

> The _reality_ is that there is _no_ point in time where you and Linus
> allow for stabilization of the main tree prior to relesae. The release
> criteria has devolved to a point where we call it done when the stack of
> pancakes gets too high.

That's simply wrong.

For instance, 2.6.8-rc1-mm1-series had 252 patches. I'm now sitting on 726
patches. That's 500 patches which are either non-bugfixes or minor
bugfixes which are held back. The various bk tree maintainers do the same
thing.

-
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: 2005-03-22 14:06    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans