Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: Linux v2.6.27-rc1: linux-next | Date | Fri, 1 Aug 2008 00:22:36 +0200 |
| |
On Wednesday, 30 of July 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > - I don't think the 'next' thing works as well for the occasional > > developer that just has a few patches pending as it works for subsystem > > maintainers that are used to it. > > Those people's patches are in -mm, which now holds maybe 100 or more > "trees", many of which are small or empty. > > My project within the next couple of weeks is to get most of that > material into linux-next. Stephen will be involved ;) > > > IOW, I think 'next' needs enough infrastructure setup from the > > developer side that I don't think it's reasonable for _everything_ to > > go through next. > > True. But > > a) some of the problematic changes which we've seen simply _should_ > have been in linux-next. Some of them were even coming from > developers whose trees are already in linux-next. > > b) A lot of the bugs which hit your tree would have been quickly > found in linux-next too. > > > But it's all shuffling deckchairs, really. Are we actually merging > better code as a reasult of all of this? Are we being more careful and > reviewing better and testing better? > > Don't think so.
Well, if the number of the regressions list entries can be regarded as a pointer, then yes, we are. :-)
There are 28 entries in there right now, compared to 53 entries initially in the list during the 2.6.26 cycle (see http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11167 for reference).
Thanks, Rafael
| |