From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chuck Ebbert Subject: Re: [git patches] libata fixes Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:33:09 -0400 Message-ID: <460ADF15.4060803@redhat.com> References: <20070328073219.GA26024@havoc.gtf.org> <460A1A3D.6050501@garzik.org> <20070328141539.353203a1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:53048 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753157AbXC1VdP (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:33:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070328141539.353203a1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds , Jeff Garzik , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, LKML Andrew Morton wrote: > > There is another metric to look at, too: the number of fixes which are > going into 2.6.x.y. If that fix count is high, and if those fixes fix bugs > which were not present in 2.6.x-1 then this is an indication that something > is wrong - many regressions are sneaking through the -rc process. > > And I haven't run the numbers, but I get the impression that 2.6.20.x has > an unusually large number of fixes in it. That could be because people are getting better at actually fixing bugs in the previous release. :)