From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
kenneth.w.chen@intel.com, mingo@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, judith@osdl.org
Subject: new dev model (was Re: Default cache_hot_time value back to 10ms)
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:19:13 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41638E61.9000004@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041005223307.375597ee.akpm@osdl.org>
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Any thoughts about making -rc's into -pre's, and doing real -rc's?
>
>
> I think what we have is OK. The idea is that once 2.6.9 is released we
> merge up all the well-tested code which is sitting in various trees and has
> been under test for a few weeks. As soon as all that well-tested code is
> merged, we go into -rc. So we're pipelining the development of 2.6.10 code
> with the stabilisation of 2.6.9.
>
> If someone goes and develops *new* code after the release of, say, 2.6.9
> then tough tittie, it's too late for 2.6.9: we don't want new code - we
> want old-n-tested code. So your typed-in-after-2.6.9 code goes into
> 2.6.11.
>
> That's the theory anyway. If it means that it takes a long time to get
This is damned frustrating :( Reality is _far_ divorced from what you
just described.
Major developers such as David and Al don't have trees that see wide
testing, their code only sees wide testing once it hits mainline. See
this message from David,
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-netdev&m=109648930728731&w=2
In particular, I think David's point about -mm being perceived as overly
experimental is fair.
Recent experience seems to directly counter the assertion that only
well-tested code is landing in mainline, and it's not hard to pick
through the -rc changelogs to find non-trivial, non-bugfix modifications
to existing code. My own experience with netdev-2.6 bears this out as
well: I have several personal examples of bugs sitting in netdev (and
thus -mm) for quite a while, only being noticed when the code hits mainline.
Linus's assertion that "calling it -rc means developers should calm
down" (implying we should start concentrating on bug fixing rather than
more-fun stuff) is equally fanciful.
Why is it so hard to say "only bugfixes"?
The _reality_ is that there is _no_ point in time where you and Linus
allow for stabilization of the main tree prior to relesae. The release
criteria has devolved to a point where we call it done when the stack of
pancakes gets too high.
Ground control to Major Tom?
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-06 6:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-06 0:42 Default cache_hot_time value back to 10ms Chen, Kenneth W
2004-10-06 0:47 ` Con Kolivas
2004-10-06 1:02 ` Nick Piggin
2004-10-06 0:58 ` Nick Piggin
2004-10-06 3:55 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-06 4:30 ` Nick Piggin
2004-10-06 4:51 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-06 5:00 ` Nick Piggin
2004-10-06 5:09 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-06 5:21 ` Nick Piggin
2004-10-06 5:33 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-06 5:46 ` Nick Piggin
2004-10-06 6:19 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2004-10-06 6:39 ` new dev model (was Re: Default cache_hot_time value back to 10ms) Andrew Morton
2004-10-06 8:56 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2004-10-06 9:44 ` bert hubert
2004-10-06 14:00 ` Andries Brouwer
2004-10-06 19:40 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-10-06 19:48 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-10-06 19:58 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-10-06 20:37 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2004-10-07 1:08 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-10-07 0:02 ` Matt Mackall
2004-10-06 9:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-10-06 9:57 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2004-10-06 19:33 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-10-06 22:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-10-06 5:52 ` Default cache_hot_time value back to 10ms Chen, Kenneth W
2004-10-06 19:27 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2004-10-06 19:39 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-06 20:38 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2004-10-06 20:43 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-06 23:14 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2004-10-07 2:26 ` Nick Piggin
2004-10-07 6:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-10-07 7:08 ` Jeff Garzik
2004-10-07 7:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-10-06 20:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-10-06 21:03 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2004-10-06 7:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-10-06 17:18 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2004-10-06 19:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-10-06 22:46 ` Peter Williams
2004-10-06 13:29 ` [patch] sched: auto-tuning task-migration Ingo Molnar
2004-10-06 13:44 ` Nick Piggin
2004-10-06 17:49 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2004-10-06 20:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-10-06 21:18 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2004-10-07 6:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-02-21 5:08 ` Paul Jackson
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=41638E61.9000004@pobox.com \
--to=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=judith@osdl.org \
--cc=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
/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.