lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.21
    Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:29:28PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >> ...
    >> So it's been over two and a half months, and while it's certainly not the
    >> longest release cycle ever, it still dragged out a bit longer than I'd
    >> have hoped for and it should have. As usual, I'd like to thank Adrian (and
    >> the people who jumped on the entries Adrian had) for keeping everybody on
    >> their toes with the regression list - there's a few entries there still,
    >> but it got to the point where we didn't even know if they were real
    >> regressions, and delaying things further just wasn't going to help.
    >> ...
    >
    >
    > Number of different known regressions compared to 2.6.20 at the time
    > of the 2.6.21 release:
    > 14
    >
    > Number of different known regressions compared to 2.6.20 at the time
    > of the 2.6.21 release that were first reported in March or earlier:
    > 8
    >
    > Number of different known regressions compared to 2.6.20 at the time
    > of the 2.6.21 release with patches available at the time of the 2.6.21
    > release [1]:
    > 3
    >
    > What I will NOT do:
    > Waste my time with tracking 2.6.22-rc regressions.
    >
    >
    > We have an astonishing amount of -rc testers, but obviously not the
    > developer manpower for handling them.
    >
    > If we would take "no regressions" seriously, it might take 4 or 5 months
    > between releases due to the lack of developer manpower for handling
    > regressions. But that should be considered OK if avoiding regressions
    > was considered more important than getting as quick as possible to the
    > next two week regression-merge window.
    >
    > But releasing with so many known regressions is insulting for the many
    > people who spent their time testing -rc kernels.
    >
    Without someone holding Linus feet to the fire the next release may be a
    real POS. I think you have done the perfect job, identifying the show
    stoppers, quantifying the obscure and minor regressions, and serving to
    give testing targets as purported fixes are applied.

    I don't think you should judge your work by leaving some targets for
    -stable and 2.6.22, but rather from the number of problems you detected,
    documented, and caused to be addressed.

    If it were my week to be God, I would insist that the rcN to final step
    was regressions-only, and that all regressions be classified as (a)
    acceptable results of changes to fix other problems, (b) must be fixed
    before release, or (c) obscure enough to tolerate for a short time, must
    be fixed in stable and mainline before N+1 release.

    Measuring releases or your own value against perfection is thankless!

    --
    Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
    "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
    the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
    -
    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: 2007-04-26 19:25    [W:4.436 / U:0.052 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site