|| ||Adrian Bunk <bunk-AT-stusta.de>|
|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
|| ||Re: Linux 2.6.21|
|| ||Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:58:02 +0200|
|| ||Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>|
I am aware that my work had some effect, and I am aware that my work
gets appreciated - there's no need for everyone to repeat this.
The point is: I'm not satisfied with the result.
Linus said 2.6.20 was a stable kernel. My impression was that at least
two of the regressions from my 2.6.20 regressions list should have been
fixed before 2.6.20.
They have both been fixed through -stable, but I also remember a quite
experienced kernel maintainer running into one of them after 2.6.20 was
released and spending half a day tracking it down - and my answer was
"known unfixed regression, first reported more than a month ago".
There is a conflict between Linus trying to release kernels every
2 months and releasing with few regressions.
Trying to avoid regressions might in the worst case result in an -rc12
and 4 months between releases. If the focus is on avoiding regressions
this has to be accepted.
And a serious delay of the next regression-merge window due to unfixed
regressions might even have the positive side effect of more developers
becoming interested in fixing the current regressions for getting their
shiny new regressions^Wfeatures faster into Linus' tree.
0 regressions is never realistic (especially since many regressions
might not be reported during -rc), but IMHO we could do much better than
what happened in 2.6.20 and 2.6.21.
These are just my personal opinions, and other people consider the
resulting 2.6.20 and 2.6.21 kernels OK.
I'm not satisfied with the result, and the world won't stop turning when
I'm not tracking 2.6.22-rc regressions.
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
to post comments)