All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>
To: John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com>
Cc: jw@pegasys.ws, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.21-rc8
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:29:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030613132931.64125055.skraw@ithnet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200306120859.h5C8xuh7000958@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk>

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:59:56 +0100
John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com> wrote:

> > Saying it is a bad idea to release a kernel with known bugs
> > is like saying it is a bad idea to buy a computer when the
> > price will be going down soon.  Would you care to delay
> > 2.4.21 until next spring or would you rather get the fixes
> > it contains today and have 2.4.22 with your pet fix on
> > (hopefully) a scale of weeks?
> 
> A lot of the known bugs have fixes which appear to be OK, but haven't
> really had enough testing to go in to a -final tree.  A lot of them
> won't have been tested on SMP boxes for example.

One of the more important things in kernel development - according to my
personal opinion - is the fact that there is _one_ main tree and you may well
ignore others. The more you split up, the less testing there will be. There is
only a certain amount of people that really use not-released kernels. If you
produce more branches the total amount of tests done will not really increase
but rather decrease (per branch) because of the split-up.
Don't do that, please
And another thing is: your proposal seems to increase load on the maintree
maintainer. I don't think this is the right way to go. I would rather say the
subsytem maintainers should be more involved. Which means: if a subsystem does
not work as expected or the patches are a mess, then I'd say it's the maintree
maintainers job to kick the a** of the subsystem maintainer to solve it, and
not to solve the problem himself. Surely he can give hints and suggestions -
who wouldn't - but the work should be done by the maintainer. I think this is
the fundamental idea behind maintainership.

Regards,
Stephan

  parent reply	other threads:[~2003-06-13 11:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-06-12  8:59 Linux 2.4.21-rc8 John Bradford
2003-06-12 16:30 ` iain d broadfoot
2003-06-13 11:29 ` Stephan von Krawczynski [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-06-10 22:06 Marcelo Tosatti
2003-06-10 23:56 ` Frank Cusack
2003-06-11  0:10   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-06-11 21:15     ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-06-12  6:27       ` Michael Knigge
2003-06-12  7:56         ` Jörn Engel
2003-06-12  8:09         ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-06-12 18:46           ` Aschwin Marsman
2003-06-12  8:17         ` jw schultz
2003-06-11  4:39 ` Lucas Correia Villa Real
2003-06-12 22:23 ` Jerome Chantelauze
2003-06-13  9:31   ` Alan Cox

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20030613132931.64125055.skraw@ithnet.com \
    --to=skraw@ithnet.com \
    --cc=john@grabjohn.com \
    --cc=jw@pegasys.ws \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.