Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version.
[Posted November 15, 2006 by corbet]
From: |
| Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org> |
To: |
| Arjan van de Ven <arjan-AT-infradead.org> |
Subject: |
| Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version. |
Date: |
| Thu, 9 Nov 2006 01:36:45 -0800 |
Cc: |
| Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl-AT-gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk-AT-stusta.de> |
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 10:26:41 +0100
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 14:51 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:22:11 +0100
> > Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > - A while back, akpm made some statements about being worried that the
> > > > 2.6 kernel is getting buggier
> > > > (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6069363.html).
> > >
> > > and at this years Kernel Summit actual data
> >
> > Not true. 70% of surveyed users had hit a new kernel bug.
<funny, I could have sworn I had some additional text in here. Where'd it go?>
> 70% of surveyed users hit ANY kernel bug. Not "new bugs"
> Including "my new wizzbang hardware doesn't work" and "I'll try
> something new, oh looky a 4 year old bug" and "this new feature isn't
> quite mature yet now that I try it".
>
> One of the things that happened was during early 2.6 udev broke left and
> right ABI wise. We've gotten a lot better at that, and that's the kind
> of bug that hits a really wide audience.
>
> Statistics can be misleading ... bigtime.
> 83% of the people also said things were not getting less reliable in
> 2.6.
>
70% hit a bug
1/7th think it's deteriorating
1/4th think lkml response is inadequate
3/5ths think bugzilla response is inadequate
2/5ths think we have features-vs-stability wrong
2/3rds hit a bug. Of those, 1/3rd remain unfixed
1/5th of users are presently impacted by a kernel bug
Happy with that?