| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Stable kernels 2.6.31.6 and 2.6.27.39 releasedStable kernels 2.6.31.6 and 2.6.27.39 releasedPosted Nov 11, 2009 12:24 UTC (Wed) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263)In reply to: Stable kernels 2.6.31.6 and 2.6.27.39 released by hmh Parent article: Stable kernels 2.6.31.6 and 2.6.27.39 released
Up a number of parents:
>that the number of patches and/or important issues in 2.6.31 exceeds that for recent releases. Is this true?
Statistically, this seems to be the case.
v2.6.16.62: 1053 commits within 854 days (avg=1.23)
>If so, are there any lessons to be learned?
Also see it from the other side: rather than 2.6.31 being overly buggy, we just give it more bugfixing love than the previous ones.
(Log in to post comments)
Stable kernels 2.6.31.6 and 2.6.27.39 released Posted Nov 13, 2009 6:52 UTC (Fri) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link]
Your statistics are only valid if the patch rate for each stable series is constant over time. It seems more likely that patches flow in the fastest at the beginning of the stable series, and then the rate drops off over time. If that's the case, then your calculation will always show the most recently released kernel as being the worst, because it's the one that's still in that early part of the cycle. Better would be to compare the same period (the first 61 days) of each kernel.
|
|
||||||||||||