Re: stable? quality assurance?

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Sunday, July 11, 2010, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 04:51:42PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > I hope that someone answers who actually can take some critique. From the 
> > current replies I perceive a lack of that ability.
> 
> well, I'll try to do then :-)
> 
> There were some threads in the past about kernel releases quality,
> where Linus explained why it could not be completely black or white.
> 
> Among the things he explained, I remember that one of primary concern
> was the inability to slow down development. I mean, if he waits 2 more
> weeks for things to stabilize, then there will be two more weeks of
> crap^H^H^H^Hdevelopment merged in next merge window, so in fact this
> will just shift dates and not quality.
...
> It's not really advisable to call dot-0 releases "unstable" because
> it will only result in shifting the adoption point between the user
> classes above.

IMnshO it's not exactly fair to call them "stable" either.  I tend to call them
"major releases" which basically reflects what they are - events in the
development process that each start a new merge window.  Nothing more, either
way.

Rafael