From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756049AbXD0QcJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:32:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756064AbXD0QcI (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:32:08 -0400 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:53987 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756049AbXD0QcH (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:32:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:31:43 -0400 From: Theodore Tso To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Alan Cox , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.21 Message-ID: <20070427163143.GG24852@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Adrian Bunk , Alan Cox , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20070426040806.GJ3468@stusta.de> <20070426125802.GL3468@stusta.de> <20070426165950.GO3468@stusta.de> <20070426215015.003f6196@the-village.bc.nu> <20070427145805.GT3468@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070427145805.GT3468@stusta.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 04:58:05PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > "no regressions" is definitely not feasible. > > 14 known regressions, some of them not yet debugged at all, are > different from your "some small regression". Yes, but when were some of these regressions reported? Past a certain point, I think it's reasonable to look at the regression, decide how many people would be affected by it, and why it hadn't been noticed earlier, and in some cases, decide that it's better to get this debugged and fixed in the stable and development trees in parallel. > And look e.g. at the many (and non-trivial) changes between -rc7 and > -final, resulting in more than one report from people who were running > -rc7 without problems - and 2.6.21 doesn't work for them. I agree that's unfortunate. > It's not a choice between "regressions don't matter" and "no regressions", > it's about the place in the area between these two extremes. I have my > opinions on what I want to expect from a stable Linux kernel, and other > people have different opinins. Everyone is going to disagree to some extent; and their own comfort zone. So a certain amount compromise is always going to be necessary. Of course, it's up to you decide whether this has gone beyond the zone where you aren't comfortable working with other people's development style. Regards, - Ted