From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031365AbXDZRXK (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:23:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031362AbXDZRXK (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:23:10 -0400 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([64.65.253.246]:47868 "EHLO gaimboi.tmr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031369AbXDZRXH (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:23:07 -0400 Message-ID: <4630E00B.3090502@tmr.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:23:23 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061105 SeaMonkey/1.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Bunk CC: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.21 References: <20070426040806.GJ3468@stusta.de> In-Reply-To: <20070426040806.GJ3468@stusta.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:29:28PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> ... >> So it's been over two and a half months, and while it's certainly not the >> longest release cycle ever, it still dragged out a bit longer than I'd >> have hoped for and it should have. As usual, I'd like to thank Adrian (and >> the people who jumped on the entries Adrian had) for keeping everybody on >> their toes with the regression list - there's a few entries there still, >> but it got to the point where we didn't even know if they were real >> regressions, and delaying things further just wasn't going to help. >> ... > > > Number of different known regressions compared to 2.6.20 at the time > of the 2.6.21 release: > 14 > > Number of different known regressions compared to 2.6.20 at the time > of the 2.6.21 release that were first reported in March or earlier: > 8 > > Number of different known regressions compared to 2.6.20 at the time > of the 2.6.21 release with patches available at the time of the 2.6.21 > release [1]: > 3 > > What I will NOT do: > Waste my time with tracking 2.6.22-rc regressions. > > > We have an astonishing amount of -rc testers, but obviously not the > developer manpower for handling them. > > If we would take "no regressions" seriously, it might take 4 or 5 months > between releases due to the lack of developer manpower for handling > regressions. But that should be considered OK if avoiding regressions > was considered more important than getting as quick as possible to the > next two week regression-merge window. > > But releasing with so many known regressions is insulting for the many > people who spent their time testing -rc kernels. > Without someone holding Linus feet to the fire the next release may be a real POS. I think you have done the perfect job, identifying the show stoppers, quantifying the obscure and minor regressions, and serving to give testing targets as purported fixes are applied. I don't think you should judge your work by leaving some targets for -stable and 2.6.22, but rather from the number of problems you detected, documented, and caused to be addressed. If it were my week to be God, I would insist that the rcN to final step was regressions-only, and that all regressions be classified as (a) acceptable results of changes to fix other problems, (b) must be fixed before release, or (c) obscure enough to tolerate for a short time, must be fixed in stable and mainline before N+1 release. Measuring releases or your own value against perfection is thankless! -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot