Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:21:07 -0500 | From | Gene Heskett <> | Subject | Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering |
| |
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 20:15, Linus Torvalds wrote: >On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote: >> I think this statement proves that the current development >> situation is working quite well. The nasty breakage and details >> got worked out in the -mm tree, and then flowed into your tree >> when they seemed sane. > >Actually, the breakage I was talking about got fixed in _my_ tree. > >I'd love for the -mm tree to get more testing, but it doesn't. > Well, that might change if, when I came crying to the list about something thats broken in an -mm release, I wasn't chased off to go run a "more stable" release. Thats occured 2-3 times in the past year.
I'll willingly play the canary as long as I don't wind up with a totally hosed filesystem. So far, knock on wood, I've been fairly lucky and have not had to do a bare metal recovery from amanda.
>> So, any driver stuff is just fine? Great, I don't have an issue >> with your proposal then, as it wouldn't affect me that much :) > >I don't know about "any", but yeah. > >> I do understand what you are trying to achieve here, people don't >> really test the -rc releases as much as a "real" 2.6.11 release. >> Getting a week of testing and bugfix only type patches to then >> release a 2.6.12 makes a lot of sense. For example, see all of >> the bug reports that came out of the woodwork today on lkml from >> the 2.6.11 release... > >A large part of it is psychological. On the other hand, it may be > that Neil is right and it would just mean that people wouldn't even > test the odd releases (..because they want to wait a couple of > weeks for the even one), so it may not actually end up helping > much. > >The thing is, I _do_ believe the current setup is working reasonably > well. But I also do know that some people (a fairly small group, > but anyway) seem to want an extra level of stability - although > those people seem to not talk so much about "it works" kind of > stability, but literally a "we can't keep up" kind of stability (ie > at least a noticeable percentage of that group is not complaining > about crashes, they are complaining about speed of development). > >And I suspect that _anything_ I do won't make those people happy. > > Linus >- >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/
-- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) 99.34% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. - 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/
| |