From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.28-rc8
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:48:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081211134825.GA26448@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0812101651130.3340@localhost.localdomain>
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Nothing overly exciting here. Lots of small things, mostly in drivers
> (with some defconfig updates for m68k and mips making the diffs
> bigger).
>
> There's some uncomfortably big changes to the intel DRI code, but most
> of that is all about fixes to the new i916 "GEM" code that is only used
> by development X servers, and is a new feature, so it shouldn't be able
> to cause regressions.
>
> Perhaps more interesting is simply the release scheduling issue. I'm
> getting slowly ready to do a real 2.6.28, but I don't think anybody
> really wants the merge window to be around the holidays. So the
> question is really whether to
>
> (a) just make the -rc's go on a few more weeks, and do 2.6.28 after xmas
>
> I like this, because alledgely people are debugging things, and we'd
> get a more stable 2.6.28.
i'd really vote for a) because there's nothing worse to overlap xmas with
than with merge window stress. A couple of key developers wont be around
either in that timeframe (whose stuff is pending) - making early reaction
to breakage in the merge window rather laggy and awkward.
A Dec 31 release would be perfect [ 84 days will have passed by then
since v2.6.27 which was released on Oct 9 ] and we would start 2009
exactly on point on the planned 3-months / 90 days schedule.
Here's our release cycle track record, and how much it deviates from the
max-90-days target:
2.6.28: 64 days [today]
on 31th: 84 days -6 days
2.6.27: 88 -2 days
2.6.26: 87 -3 days
2.6.25: 83 -7 days
2.6.24: 107 +17 days
2.6.23: 92 +2 days
2.6.22: 73 -17 days
2.6.21: 80 -10 days
2.6.20: 66 -26 days
2.6.19: 70 -20 days
2.6.18: 94 +4 days
2.6.17: 89 -1 day
2.6.16: 76 -14 days
2.6.15: 67 -23 days
2.6.14: 60 -30 days
2.6.13: 72 -18 days
We lost two and a half weeks with 2.6.24 that was released belatedly on
Jan 24 - we've made up all the ground for that already.
And the killer argument: there's nothing better to mask a nasty Jan 1
hangover with than with some merge window stress ;-)
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-11 13:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-11 1:04 Linux 2.6.28-rc8 Linus Torvalds
2008-12-11 2:37 ` Gabriel C
2008-12-11 7:19 ` Eric Anholt
2008-12-11 16:07 ` Frans Pop
2008-12-11 16:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-12-11 16:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-11 17:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-12-11 20:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-11 20:46 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-12-11 21:34 ` Suresh Siddha
2008-12-12 8:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-12 15:57 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-12-12 16:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-12-13 17:15 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-12-16 22:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-11 5:09 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-12-11 7:57 ` Nick Piggin
2008-12-11 8:07 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-11 8:45 ` Nick Piggin
2008-12-12 3:02 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-12 3:07 ` Nick Piggin
2008-12-12 3:39 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-11 8:06 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-12-11 8:40 ` Joerg Roedel
2008-12-11 22:57 ` Theodore Tso
2008-12-11 23:12 ` Mike Travis
2008-12-11 9:26 ` Jean Delvare
2008-12-11 10:38 ` Frederik Deweerdt
2008-12-11 16:59 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-11 13:00 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-12-11 13:23 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2008-12-11 13:44 ` Alexey Zaytsev
2008-12-11 13:48 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-12-11 15:20 ` Pavel Machek
2008-12-11 15:29 ` David Howells
2008-12-12 3:19 ` David Miller
2008-12-12 5:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-12-12 7:54 ` Joerg Roedel
2008-12-12 15:48 ` Alan Cox
2008-12-11 20:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20081211134825.GA26448@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox