Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1424254AbWKKLZd (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Nov 2006 06:25:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1424347AbWKKLZd (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Nov 2006 06:25:33 -0500 Received: from [212.70.37.113] ([212.70.37.113]:7809 "EHLO raad.intranet") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1424254AbWKKLZc (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Nov 2006 06:25:32 -0500 From: Al Boldi To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version. Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:15:51 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Arjan van de Ven , Randy Dunlap , Jesper Juhl , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200611090757.48744.a1426z@gawab.com> <200611110715.49343.a1426z@gawab.com> <200611110631.kAB6V12n011990@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <200611110631.kAB6V12n011990@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1256" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200611111415.51324.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1684 Lines: 43 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 07:15:49 +0300, Al Boldi said: > > I don't think there is a lack of heuristics, nor is there a lack of > > discussion. What is needed, is a realization of the problem. > > > > IOW, respective tree-owners need to come to a realization of the state > > of their trees, problem or not. If it has a problem, that problem needs > > to be fixed or backed out of stable and moved into dev. > > I keep trying to parse this, and it keeps coming up as "content-free". Think denial. > For starters, you don't even have a useful definition of "has a problem". > There's a whole *range* of definitions for that, and even skilled and > respected members of the Linux kernel community can disagree about whether > something is "a problem". For example, see the thread about a week ago > about "Remove hotplug cpu crap from cpufreq". > > If, given a *specific* feature with high wart quotient, we can't agree on > whether it needs to be fixed or backed out, we're doomed to fail if we > start handwaving about problems "in general". As a group, we suck at > anything that isn't specific, like "Algorithm A is better than B for > case XYZ". We don't need to agree whether A is better than B, the mere fact that we acknowledge the problem is the first step in finding a solution. So, either fix it, or back out. OTOH, if there is no problem, then I guess we have blue skies... Thanks! -- Al - 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/