public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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