Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1424135AbWKIRFe (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2006 12:05:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1424140AbWKIRFe (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2006 12:05:34 -0500 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:35557 "EHLO hera.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1424135AbWKIRFd (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2006 12:05:33 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version. Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 09:05:02 -0800 Organization: OSDL Message-ID: <20061109090502.4d5cd8ef@freekitty> References: <200611090757.48744.a1426z@gawab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: build.pdx.osdl.net 1163091902 8587 10.8.0.54 (9 Nov 2006 17:05:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@osdl.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:05:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Sylpheed-Claws 2.5.0-rc3 (GTK+ 2.10.6; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2250 Lines: 60 On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 07:57:48 +0300 Al Boldi wrote: > Andreas Mohr wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 11:40:27PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > Let me make one very clear statement first: -stabel is a GREAT think > > > and it is working VERY well. > > > That being said, many of the fixes I see going into -stable are > > > regression fixes. Maybe not the majority, but still, regression fixes > > > going into -stable tells me that the kernel should have seen more > > > testing/bugfixing before being declared a stable release. > > > > Nice theory, but of course I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't work > > Agreed. > > > (as has been said numerous time before by other people). > > > > You cannot do endless testing/bugfixing, it's a psychological issue. > > Agreed. > > > If you do that, then you end up with -preXX (or worse, -preXXX) > > version numbers, which would cause too many people to wait and wait > > and wait with upgrading until "that next stable" kernel version > > finally becomes available. > > IOW, your tester base erodes, awfully, and development progress stalls. > > IMHO, the psycho-problem is that you cannot intertwine development and stable > in the same cycle. In that respect, the 2.6 development cycle is a real > flop, as it does not allow for focus. > > And focus is needed to achieve stability. > > Think catch22... > > > Thanks! > > -- > Al There are bugfixes which are too big for stable or -rc releases, that are queued for 2.6.20. "Bugfix only" is a relative statement. Do you include, new hardware support, new security api's, performance fixes. It gets to be real hard to decide, because these are the changes that often cause regressions; often one major bug fix causes two minor bugs. Interestingly, adding a new feature often causes no bugs in the rest of the code, but it does increase the possible bug surface so most of the problems related to feature X are bugs in feature X. -- Stephen Hemminger - 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/