From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031211AbXDZM5x (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:57:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031219AbXDZM5w (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:57:52 -0400 Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:35191 "EHLO mailhub.stusta.mhn.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031211AbXDZM5v (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:57:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:58:02 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.21 Message-ID: <20070426125802.GL3468@stusta.de> References: <20070426040806.GJ3468@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070426040806.GJ3468@stusta.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org A clarification: I am aware that my work had some effect, and I am aware that my work gets appreciated - there's no need for everyone to repeat this. The point is: I'm not satisfied with the result. Linus said 2.6.20 was a stable kernel. My impression was that at least two of the regressions from my 2.6.20 regressions list should have been fixed before 2.6.20. They have both been fixed through -stable, but I also remember a quite experienced kernel maintainer running into one of them after 2.6.20 was released and spending half a day tracking it down - and my answer was "known unfixed regression, first reported more than a month ago". There is a conflict between Linus trying to release kernels every 2 months and releasing with few regressions. Trying to avoid regressions might in the worst case result in an -rc12 and 4 months between releases. If the focus is on avoiding regressions this has to be accepted. And a serious delay of the next regression-merge window due to unfixed regressions might even have the positive side effect of more developers becoming interested in fixing the current regressions for getting their shiny new regressions^Wfeatures faster into Linus' tree. 0 regressions is never realistic (especially since many regressions might not be reported during -rc), but IMHO we could do much better than what happened in 2.6.20 and 2.6.21. These are just my personal opinions, and other people consider the resulting 2.6.20 and 2.6.21 kernels OK. I'm not satisfied with the result, and the world won't stop turning when I'm not tracking 2.6.22-rc regressions. cu Adrian -- "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