Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 18:38:36 -0500
From: Justin Wells <jread@semiotek.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please tag tested releases of the 2.4.x kernel
Message-ID: <20011202183836.A32423@semiotek.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org


Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> In article <20011201113734.5187E38329@fever.semiotek.com> you wrote:
> > And the kernels on kernel.org *are* tested, by lots of people, by kernel 
> > developers, by lots of ordinary folks even. I bet right after theren's 
> > an announce on slashdot you see lots of traffic on the ftp/http sites.
> 
> The problem is that there is absoloutly no defined QA-cycle for these
> kernels. Please take a look at what distributors (at least most, I know
> at least one counter-example):

I'm not asking for any change in the development process, the
creation of a test suite, or any quantification of quality. I'm
asking for the consensus.

Here's my level of comfort: I don't want to be on the bleeding edge,
but I want to be on the blade, just a little back from where all the
bloodshed is. I want to run something pretty new, but which lots of 
other people have been able to run without much pain.

The voting idea sounded good, or just tracking what people are running, 
or having someone judge the consensus by gut feel. Any of these would 
guide people like me to the better kernels.

I just want to see some indicator like this on kernel.org pointing me at
which kernels are worth my while to test out and try.

Justin

-
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/