[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Slow DOWN, please!!!
On 4/30/2008 16:31, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> <jumps up and down>
>> There should be nothing in 2.6.x-rc1 which wasn't in 2.6.x-mm1!
> The problem I see with both -mm and linux-next is that they tend to be
> better at finding the "physical conflict" kind of issues (ie the merge
> itself fails) than the "code looks ok but doesn't actually work" kind of
> issue.
> Why?
> The tester base is simply too small.
> Now, if *that* could be improved, that would be wonderful, but I'm not
> seeing it as very likely.

Perhaps we should be clear and simple about what potential testers
should be running at any given point in time. With -mm, linux-next,
linux-2.6, etc, as a newcomer I find it difficult to know where my
testing time and energy is best directed.

Is linux-next the right thing to be running at this point? Is there a
need for testing in a particular tree (netdev, x86, etc)?


/--------------- - - - - - -
| Dan Noe

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-30 22:51    [W:0.248 / U:13.756 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site