Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269392AbUJFTg4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:36:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269382AbUJFTg4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:36:56 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:46008 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269392AbUJFTeI (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:34:08 -0400 Message-ID: <4164489D.6040404@pobox.com> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:33:49 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040922 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , kenneth.w.chen@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, judith@osdl.org Subject: Re: new dev model (was Re: Default cache_hot_time value back to 10ms) 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2032 Lines: 53 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. > > 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. I said "stabilization of the main tree" for a reason :) Like a "mini-Andrew", I have over 100 net driver csets waiting for 2.6.10 as well. The crucial point is establishing a psychology where maintainers only submit (and only apply) bug fixes in -rc series. As long as random stuff (like fasync in 2.6.8 release) is getting applied at the last minute, we are * destroying the validity of testing done in -rc prior to release, and * reducing the value of user testing * discouraging users from treating -rc as anything but a 'devel' release (as opposed to a 'stable' release) > 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. The simple fact is that -mm doesn't receive _nearly_ the amount of testing that a 2.6.x -BK snapshot does, which in turn doesn't receive _nearly_ the amount of testing that a 2.6.x-rc release gets. The increase in the amount of testing, and amount of feedback I get for my stuff in -mm/-bk versus -rc/release is a very large margin. For this reason, one cannot hold up testing in -mm as nearly having the value of testing in -rc. But with the diminished signal/noise ratio of current -rc... 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/