Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265352AbTFMLQA (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:16:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265355AbTFMLQA (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:16:00 -0400 Received: from mail.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.8]:43789 "HELO heather.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265352AbTFMLP7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:15:59 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:29:31 +0200 From: Stephan von Krawczynski To: John Bradford Cc: jw@pegasys.ws, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.21-rc8 Message-Id: <20030613132931.64125055.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: <200306120859.h5C8xuh7000958@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> References: <200306120859.h5C8xuh7000958@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.2 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1931 Lines: 37 On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:59:56 +0100 John Bradford wrote: > > Saying it is a bad idea to release a kernel with known bugs > > is like saying it is a bad idea to buy a computer when the > > price will be going down soon. Would you care to delay > > 2.4.21 until next spring or would you rather get the fixes > > it contains today and have 2.4.22 with your pet fix on > > (hopefully) a scale of weeks? > > A lot of the known bugs have fixes which appear to be OK, but haven't > really had enough testing to go in to a -final tree. A lot of them > won't have been tested on SMP boxes for example. One of the more important things in kernel development - according to my personal opinion - is the fact that there is _one_ main tree and you may well ignore others. The more you split up, the less testing there will be. There is only a certain amount of people that really use not-released kernels. If you produce more branches the total amount of tests done will not really increase but rather decrease (per branch) because of the split-up. Don't do that, please And another thing is: your proposal seems to increase load on the maintree maintainer. I don't think this is the right way to go. I would rather say the subsytem maintainers should be more involved. Which means: if a subsystem does not work as expected or the patches are a mess, then I'd say it's the maintree maintainers job to kick the a** of the subsystem maintainer to solve it, and not to solve the problem himself. Surely he can give hints and suggestions - who wouldn't - but the work should be done by the maintainer. I think this is the fundamental idea behind maintainership. Regards, Stephan - 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/