Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269181AbUJFJ6C (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2004 05:58:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269182AbUJFJ6B (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2004 05:58:01 -0400 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.195]:51559 "EHLO mproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269181AbUJFJ51 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2004 05:57:27 -0400 Message-ID: <4d8e3fd304100602571d6d9907@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 11:57:27 +0200 From: Paolo Ciarrocchi Reply-To: Paolo Ciarrocchi To: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: new dev model (was Re: Default cache_hot_time value back to 10ms) Cc: Jeff Garzik , Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , kenneth.w.chen@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, judith@osdl.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <200410060042.i960gn631637@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <20041005205511.7746625f.akpm@osdl.org> <416374D5.50200@yahoo.com.au> <20041005215116.3b0bd028.akpm@osdl.org> <41637BD5.7090001@yahoo.com.au> <20041005220954.0602fba8.akpm@osdl.org> <416380D7.9020306@yahoo.com.au> <20041005223307.375597ee.akpm@osdl.org> <41638E61.9000004@pobox.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2183 Lines: 50 On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 05:23:29 -0400 (EDT), Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > The _reality_ is that there is _no_ point in time where you and Linus > > allow for stabilization of the main tree prior to relesae. [...] > > i dont think this is fair to Andrew - there's hundreds of patches in his > tree that are scheduled for 2.6.10 not 2.6.9. Andrew is doing an amazing job. He's really an impressive hacker. > you are right that -mm is experimental, but the latency of bugfixes is the > lowest i've ever seen in any Linux tree, which is quite amazing > considering the hundreds of patches. Just my humble opinion, I think that's because Andrew and Linus are working very well together, I'm not sure that's because the new dev model. It seems to me that there is room for improvment. > it is also correct that the pile of patches in the -mm tree mask the QA > effects of testing done on -mm, so testing -BK separately is just as > important at this stage. > > Maybe it would help perception and awareness-of-release a bit if at this > stage Andrew switched the -mm tree to the -BK tree and truly only kept > those patches that are destined for BK for 2.6.9. [i.e. if the current > patch-series would be cut off at patch #3 or so, but the numbering of > -rc3-mm3 would be keept.] This can only be done if the changes from now to > 2.6.9-real are small enough in that they dont impact those 700 patches too > much. > > This switching would immediately expose all -mm users to the current state > of affairs of the -BK tree. (yes, people could try the -BK tree just as > much but it seems -mm is used by developers quite often and it would help > if the two trees would be largely equivalent so close to the release.) Good idea. -- Paolo Personal home page: www.ciarrocchi.tk See my photos: http://paolociarrocchi.fotopic.net/ Buy cool stuff here: http://www.cafepress.com/paoloc - 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/