release cycle (Re: 2.6.19 -mm merge plans)

Pavel Machek
2006-09-22T18:53:43Z

Hi!

> > > If you think that shortening the release cycle will cause people to be more
> > > disciplined in their changes, to spend less time going berzerk and to spend
> > > more time working with our users and testers on known bugs then I'm all
> > > ears.
> >
> > Honestly, I do think it would be positive. It would shorten the
> > feedback loop, and get more changes out to testers.
> >
> > It would also decrease the pressure of the 60+ trees trying to get
> > everything in, because they know the next release is 3-4 months away.
> > It would be _much_ easier to say "break the generic device stuff in
> > 2.6.20 not 2.6.19, please" if we knew 2.6.20 wasn't going to be a 2007
> > release.
>
> Well, it might be worth trying. But there's a practical problem: how do we
> get there when there's so much work pending? If we skip some people's
> trees then they'll get sore, and it's not obvious that it'll help much, as
> the various trees are fairly unrelated (ie: parallelisable).

Well, slightly evil way would be 'if we find vfs changes in your ocfs
tree, well, you wait for one more release' :-).

Pavel

--
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.