lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Linux v2.6.27-rc1: linux-next
Date
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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-01 00:23    [W:0.070 / U:1.740 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site