Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:14:16 -0800
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>,
       Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Andries Brouwer <aebr@win.tue.nl>,
       Maciej Soltysiak <solt2@dns.toxicfilms.tv>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: starting with 2.7
Message-ID: <20050104131416.GF2708@holomorphy.com>
References: <20050103153438.GF2980@stusta.de> <1697129508.20050102210332@dns.toxicfilms.tv> <1104767943.4192.17.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <41D9D69C.1070002@tmr.com> <1104824557.4215.1.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1104824557.4215.1.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1524
Lines: 32

At some point in the past, someone wrote:
>>> The joint approach also has major advantages, even for quality:
>>> All testing happens on the same codebase. 
>>> Previously, the testing focus was split between the stable and unstable
>>> branch, to the detriment of *both*.

At some point in the past, someone else wrote:
>> You think so? I think the number of people testing the 2.4.xx-rc 
>> versions AND the 2.6.xx-bkN versions is a small (nonzero) percentage of 
>> total people trying any new release. I think people test what they plan 
>> to use, so there's less competition for testers than you suggest. People 
>> staying with 2.4 test that, people wanting or needing to move forward 
>> test 2.6.

On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 08:42:36AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Actually I suspect the number of people testing 2.4.xx-rc is *really*
> small now. My point however was more towards a 2.6 / 2.7 split, where
> the people who want to test newest do 2.7 while people who want to test
> stable test 2.6; right now those two groups test basically the same
> codebase.

But this is a good thing; new code should meet the prior standards
of stability and correctness as should the tree at all times. Efforts
to recover it once it is lost to a large degree are doomed.


-- wli
-
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/