Re: 2.6.19 -mm merge plans

Adrian Bunk
2006-09-21T19:46:13Z

On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:33:41PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >One of the things that I think the current model has excelled at is how it
> >really changed peoples behaviour, simply because they knew and understood
> >the rules.
> >
> >I think the "big merges in the first two weeks, and a -rc1 after, and no
> >new code after that" rule has been working because it brought everybody in
> >on the same page.
>
>
> I definitely agree with all that.
>
> I simply argue that, the more time that passes between releases, the
> MORE BUGS that appear in the next release.
>
> After -rc1, you reach a point of diminishing returns where users don't
> re-test Release Candidates, developers move on to new code rather than
> fix bugs, and we all move into a limbo where 2.6.X-rcY doesn't see much
> activity, but the huge "merge snowball" in -mm builds and builds and builds.

This "there is not enough testing by users" is simply not true:

Even the kernel Bugzilla that contains only a small subset of all bug
reports contains 78 (sic) open bugs reported against 2.6.18-rc kernels [1].

Not all of them are regressions, but this shows that users are testing
-rc kernels and reporting bugs.

> As an aside, if a release is getting held up by some key bugs or
> regressions, I think it's more than fair for Andrew to loudly shame said
> developers into action. "The following nincompoops are holding up the
> release: Jeff Garzik [bug #1222, #3391], Greg KH [bug #9987, #4418], ..."
>
> Jeff

cu
Adrian

[1] including bugs reported against 2.6.18-rc?-mm? and 2.6.18-rc?-git*

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed