Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:23:25 +0200 | From | Stefan Richter <> | Subject | Re: regression tracking (Re: Linux 2.6.21) |
| |
Oleg Verych wrote: > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: [...] >> This means going through every single point in the regression list >> asking "Have we tried everything possible to solve this regression?". [...] >> And a low hanging fruit to improve the release would be if you could >> release one last -rc, wait for 48 hours, and then release either this >> -rc unchanged as -final or another -rc (and wait another 48 hours). >> There were at least two different regressions people ran into in 2.6.21 >> who successfully tested -rc7. > > What about Linus' tree is a development tree, Andrew's one is a "crazy > development one" (quoting Linus)? [...]
Linus also said that Andrew's tree is abused too often for broken stuff.
My goal for the little driver subsystem I'm maintaining is - everything that Andrew pulls from me builds and runs and doesn't introduce regressions to my and the submitters' knowledge. I am slowly expanding my test procedures to catch things that fail that goal. - Everything that Linus pulls from me fulfills the above criteria and, in addition, had reasonable time and publication for test and review, depending on the kind of patch.
I had a few regressions in Linus' releases. None of them were known before release. All of them were debugged and fixed rather soon after report, AFAIR.
So what _I_ need is neither better regression tracking nor more manpower for debugging of regression reports. What I need is more own spare time and equipment for tests, more own knowledge and experience, and more people who run-time test -rc kernels or at least my subsystem updates on top of older kernels.
(Note, I'm talking only about regressions here, not old bugs. There my requirements are different; the by far most important one is more manpower for debugging and fixing.)
Well, if _other_ subsystems would get regressions in Linus' tree fixed quicker, there might perhaps be more people who would consider to run -rc kernels and would catch and report "my" regressions.
[Oleg, sorry that I too digressed from the subject of your thread, but your remark about "[crazy] development tree"s caught my eye. IMO people should care for quality already in Andrew's tree --- more so than at the moment.]
[Adrian, I'm not saying "too few users run -rc kernels", I'm saying "too few FireWire driver users run -rc kernels".] -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== -==- =---- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - 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/
| |