Re: Linux 2.6.21

Bill Davidsen
2007-04-26T17:23:10Z

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:29:28PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> ...
>> So it's been over two and a half months, and while it's certainly not the
>> longest release cycle ever, it still dragged out a bit longer than I'd
>> have hoped for and it should have. As usual, I'd like to thank Adrian (and
>> the people who jumped on the entries Adrian had) for keeping everybody on
>> their toes with the regression list - there's a few entries there still,
>> but it got to the point where we didn't even know if they were real
>> regressions, and delaying things further just wasn't going to help.
>> ...
>
>
> Number of different known regressions compared to 2.6.20 at the time
> of the 2.6.21 release:
> 14
>
> Number of different known regressions compared to 2.6.20 at the time
> of the 2.6.21 release that were first reported in March or earlier:
> 8
>
> Number of different known regressions compared to 2.6.20 at the time
> of the 2.6.21 release with patches available at the time of the 2.6.21
> release [1]:
> 3
>
> What I will NOT do:
> Waste my time with tracking 2.6.22-rc regressions.
>
>
> We have an astonishing amount of -rc testers, but obviously not the
> developer manpower for handling them.
>
> If we would take "no regressions" seriously, it might take 4 or 5 months
> between releases due to the lack of developer manpower for handling
> regressions. But that should be considered OK if avoiding regressions
> was considered more important than getting as quick as possible to the
> next two week regression-merge window.
>
> But releasing with so many known regressions is insulting for the many
> people who spent their time testing -rc kernels.
>
Without someone holding Linus feet to the fire the next release may be a
real POS. I think you have done the perfect job, identifying the show
stoppers, quantifying the obscure and minor regressions, and serving to
give testing targets as purported fixes are applied.

I don't think you should judge your work by leaving some targets for
-stable and 2.6.22, but rather from the number of problems you detected,
documented, and caused to be addressed.

If it were my week to be God, I would insist that the rcN to final step
was regressions-only, and that all regressions be classified as (a)
acceptable results of changes to fix other problems, (b) must be fixed
before release, or (c) obscure enough to tolerate for a short time, must
be fixed in stable and mainline before N+1 release.

Measuring releases or your own value against perfection is thankless!

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot