Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:29:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:29:05 -0500 Received: from havoc.daloft.com ([64.213.145.173]:32714 "EHLO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:29:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:38:50 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik To: Paul Larson Cc: John Bradford , davej@codemonkey.org.uk, edesio@ieee.org, lkml , Linus Torvalds , edesio@task.com.br Subject: Re: 2.5.60 cheerleading... Message-ID: <20030213213850.GA22037@gtf.org> References: <200302131823.h1DINeZh016257@darkstar.example.net> <1045170999.28493.57.camel@plars> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1045170999.28493.57.camel@plars> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1024 Lines: 27 On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 03:16:29PM -0600, Paul Larson wrote: > Ideally, there should be no waiting around for replies. The message is > sent, he starts whatever build/boot test cycle, checks for replies when > he's done and ready to release. If nothing looks urgent enough to hold > it up, then he pushes the release. I still don't see how this adds any > kind of terrible delay. Outside suggestions to "improve" Linus's workflow usually fall upon deaf ears... IMO to accomplish your goals, set up a test box with BitKeeper, constantly pulling and testing the latest 2.5.x BK trees. If they crash, send full info to lkml. Enough crash messages, and people will know automatically whether or not the kernel is good... and Linus didn't have to be bothered at all. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/