Re: Linux 2.6.21

Michal Piotrowski
2007-04-29T22:57:04Z

On 30/04/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:33:30AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 00:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >...
> > > And it failed because many regressions still stayed unfixed and some
> > > even undebugged.
> >
> > No it failed not. It is not perfect. Way more bugs, which have been
> > fixed or are in the debugging process, would have been unnoticed and
> > ignored otherwise.
> >...
>
> It depends on what you consider failure and what you consider success.

I hope that this discussion about bugs will change something in Linux
regressions front.

Huge thanks to you for that.

>
> For me, it failed. Not because it wasn't perfect, but because we could
> have done much better with fixing the known regressions, and also by not
> introducing several regressions between the last -rc and the final
> kernel (and people who did test -rc7 and would most likely also have
> tested an -rc8 ran into them).
>
> > tglx
>
> cu
> Adrian

Regards,
Michal

--
Michal K. K. Piotrowski
Kernel Monkeys
(http://kernel.wikidot.com/start)