Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261662AbVADPJd (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:09:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261716AbVADPJd (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:09:33 -0500 Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:9735 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261670AbVADPIM (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:08:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 16:08:10 +0100 From: Adrian Bunk To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: Diego Calleja , Willy Tarreau , davidsen@tmr.com, aebr@win.tue.nl, solt2@dns.toxicfilms.tv, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 Message-ID: <20050104150810.GD3097@stusta.de> References: <20050102221534.GG4183@stusta.de> <41D87A64.1070207@tmr.com> <20050103003011.GP29332@holomorphy.com> <20050103004551.GK4183@stusta.de> <20050103011935.GQ29332@holomorphy.com> <20050103053304.GA7048@alpha.home.local> <20050103142412.490239b8.diegocg@teleline.es> <20050103134727.GA2980@stusta.de> <20050104125738.GC2708@holomorphy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050104125738.GC2708@holomorphy.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1790 Lines: 43 On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 04:57:38AM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 02:24:12PM +0100, Diego Calleja wrote: > >> 2.6 will stop having small issues in each release until 2.7 is forked just > >> like 2.4 broke things until 2.5 was forked. The difference IMO > >> is that linux development now avoids things like the unstability which the > >> 2.4.10 changes caused and things like the fs corruption bugs we saw in 2.4 > > On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 02:47:27PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > The 2.6.9 -> 2.6.10 patch is 28 MB, and while the changes that went into > > 2.4 were limited since the most invasive patches were postponed for 2.5, > > now _all_ patches go into 2.6 . > > Yes, -mm gives a bit more testing coverage, but it doesn't seem to be > > enough for this vast amount of changes. > > No amount of testing coverage will ever suffice. You're trying to > empirically establish the nonexistence of something, which is only > possible to repudiate, and never to verify. I claim: The less and the less invasive patches go into the kernel, the less likely are breakages. "enough" shouldn't say "mathematically exactly proven that no regressions exist" but more something like the pretty small number of regressions in recent 2.4 kernels. > -- wli cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - 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/