Rate of change

Rate of change

[Jeff Garzik]

850 changesets and 3383 revisions since 2.6.9 was released,
a little over 24 hours ago.

That's pretty impressive.

	Jeff

Re: Rate of change

[Ben Dooks]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:16:00PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> 850 changesets and 3383 revisions since 2.6.9 was released,
> a little over 24 hours ago.
> 
> That's pretty impressive.

well, i've had stuff waiting for a few days for this
release to happen, so some of us where prepared ;-)

-- 
Ben (ben@fluff.org, http://www.fluff.org/)

  'a smiley only costs 4 bytes'

Re: Rate of change

[Dave Jones]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:16:00PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
 > 
 > 850 changesets and 3383 revisions since 2.6.9 was released,
 > a little over 24 hours ago.
 > 
 > That's pretty impressive.

Given a lot of these are backlogs from folks being
conservative whilst we were in -rc, perhaps this is an
indication we need shorter -rc periods ?

		Dave

Re: Rate of change

[Jeff Garzik]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:37:59PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:16:00PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>  > 
>  > 850 changesets and 3383 revisions since 2.6.9 was released,
>  > a little over 24 hours ago.
>  > 
>  > That's pretty impressive.
> 
> Given a lot of these are backlogs from folks being
> conservative whilst we were in -rc, perhaps this is an
> indication we need shorter -rc periods ?


Actually, we need longer non-rc periods :)

	Jeff

Re: Rate of change

[Russell King]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:39:32PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:37:59PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:16:00PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >  > 
> >  > 850 changesets and 3383 revisions since 2.6.9 was released,
> >  > a little over 24 hours ago.
> >  > 
> >  > That's pretty impressive.
> > 
> > Given a lot of these are backlogs from folks being
> > conservative whilst we were in -rc, perhaps this is an
> > indication we need shorter -rc periods ?
> 
> 
> Actually, we need longer non-rc periods :)

Personally, I think both of you are right.  One major kernel release a
month seemed to be about the right rate.  Maybe a week and a half of
non-rc plus two and a half weeks of -rc would be the right kind of
balance?

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 PCMCIA      - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
                 2.6 Serial core

Re: Rate of change

[Jens Axboe]

On Tue, Oct 19 2004, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:37:59PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:16:00PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >  > 
> >  > 850 changesets and 3383 revisions since 2.6.9 was released,
> >  > a little over 24 hours ago.
> >  > 
> >  > That's pretty impressive.
> > 
> > Given a lot of these are backlogs from folks being
> > conservative whilst we were in -rc, perhaps this is an
> > indication we need shorter -rc periods ?
> 
> 
> Actually, we need longer non-rc periods :)

Agree. The rate of change is truly impressive (thank you Andrew and
BK!), but personally I'd like to see things settle down a lot more
quickly. Instead of having 2-3 weeks of continual patch flood, a week or
submitting the stuff that was already done by 2.6.9 by Andrews inclusion
criteria (which I completely agree with) results in -rc1, followed by
2-3 weeks of of truly stabilizing bug fixing. Since by virtue of this
inclusion criteria development for a particular feature/change is
already done by 2.6.9 release, this should be easy [1].

[1] Yeah right, but at least we can try.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: Rate of change

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> >  > 850 changesets and 3383 revisions since 2.6.9 was released,
> >  > a little over 24 hours ago.
> >  > 
> >  > That's pretty impressive.
> > 
> > Given a lot of these are backlogs from folks being
> > conservative whilst we were in -rc, perhaps this is an
> > indication we need shorter -rc periods ?
> 
> 
> Actually, we need longer non-rc periods :)

Or perhaps we need 2.7? It would probably make sense to keep 2.7
shorter than usual...

								Pavel
-- 
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!

Re: Rate of change

[Måns Rullgård]

Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> writes:

> 850 changesets and 3383 revisions since 2.6.9 was released,
> a little over 24 hours ago.
>
> That's pretty impressive.

It is, but I'm sure many of those changes were patches pending the
release before being committed.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@mru.ath.cx

Re: Rate of change

[Matt Heler]

How many changes occured between 2.6.8 & 2.6.9 ? 

-matt


On Tuesday 19 October 2004 2:16 pm, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 850 changesets and 3383 revisions since 2.6.9 was released,
> a little over 24 hours ago.
>
> That's pretty impressive.
>
> 	Jeff
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Rate of change

[Jeff Garzik]

Matt Heler wrote:
> How many changes occured between 2.6.8 & 2.6.9 ? 

'bk pull' says 4000 revisions to ChangeSet, for
15723 total revisions.

(these numbers include merge changesets, which inflate things)