Subject: Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version.
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
In-Reply-To: <9a8748490611081409x6b4cc4b4lc52b91c7b7b237a6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9a8748490611081409x6b4cc4b4lc52b91c7b7b237a6@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Intel International BV
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:22:11 +0100
Message-Id: <1163024531.3138.406.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2246
Lines: 62


> There's no shortage of issues that need fixing, but since we keep
> merging new stuff, a lot of bugfixing energy gets spend on the new
> cool stuff instead of fixing up any other issues we have.

but if you do this you just end up with a bigger backlog so that the
next one will even be more unstable due to a extreme high change rate.


> Coverity has, as of this writing, identified 728 issues in the current
> kernel. Sure, some of those have already been identified as false or
> ignorable issues, but many are flagged as actual bugs and still more
> are as yet uninspected.

most are mostly false. And the rest is getting looked at. What's the
problem?

> Adrian Bunk has his list of known regressions and, I'll bet, also some
> patches in the trivial queue for small issues.

and all this fixing is happening AS WELL as new features. What makes you
think suddenly even more fixing will happen?

> There are many parts of the kernel that are not documented.

this is where the OSDL Documentation Person will help a lot; a full time
person.


> I'm sure most distributions have a bunch of bug fixing patches lying
> about that they could push.

I doubt it; most have gotten real good at avoiding getting a huge patch
backlog since that is just incredibly expensive ;)

> - A while back, akpm made some statements about being worried that the
> 2.6 kernel is getting buggier
> (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6069363.html).

and at this years Kernel Summit actual data and general consensus showed
this was unfounded fear; the bugrates are more or less stable, but with
many more users.

> 
> - The need for the -stable tree and the (relatively large) number of
> -stable releases between each new major release clearly shows that we
> are leaving lots of regressions in our wake.

No it shows that bugs are getting fixed and delivered to you
IMMEDIATELY. Many many of the -stable things fixed are not in new
things. Is there anything in the -stable process that is not working for
you?


-
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/