lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.32-rc3
    On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 08:42:18AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > Now, that's not actually true, because (a) people rebase and (b) even in
    > the absense of rebases I do merge with people like Andrew by email, so we
    > actually end up having statistics like these:
    >
    > 32 SUBLEVEL = 29
    > 383 SUBLEVEL = 30
    > 8795 SUBLEVEL = 31
    > 1 SUBLEVEL = 32
    >
    > which is actually a bit sad in itself (showing just _how_ many people
    > rebased their work on top of a release), but is still showing that we
    > actually had 32 new commits in there that were based on a 2.6.29 kernel

    It's actually not quite so bad. If you take into account
    Extraversion, the stats that you get look like this[1]:

    4 29-rc2
    28 29-rc8
    331 30
    4 30-rc2
    48 30-rc5
    3867 31
    561 31-rc1
    895 31-rc2
    190 31-rc3
    278 31-rc4
    1245 31-rc5
    521 31-rc6
    515 31-rc7
    387 31-rc8
    336 31-rc9
    1 32-rc2

    That actually shows that well over half of the commit based off of
    2.6.31 were actually based off of some 2.6.31-rc release, based on
    something *before* 2.6.31 released.

    Of the 3867 that were based on something between 2.6.31 and
    2.6.31-rc1, that may be explained by people (like me) who will do a
    test merge, and if the test merge has conflicts, prefer to resolve the
    conflicts via a rebase and a re-run of the regression test suite, as
    opposed to either (a) having the upstream maintainer (you) do handle
    the merge, or (b) having two merges in the history; one merge by the
    maintainer to resolve the merge conflict, and another by the upstream
    maintainer when they pull in the topic branch.

    Some (probably small percentage of the commits based on something
    between 2.6.31 and 2.6.31-rc1 can probably be explained by on bug
    fixes after an initial merge, but granted that's probably a pretty
    small set.

    - Ted

    \[1] Generated using:

    git rev-list v2.6.31..v2.6.32-rc1 |
    while read a
    do
    git show $a:Makefile | head -4 > /tmp/foo
    awk '/^SUBLEVEL/ {printf("%s", $3)}; /^EXTRAVERSION/ {print $3}' < /tmp/foo
    done | sort | uniq -c



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-06 19:55    [W:0.026 / U:0.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site