Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756321AbXFPMYr (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 08:24:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754659AbXFPMYk (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 08:24:40 -0400 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:49644 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754583AbXFPMYk (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Jun 2007 08:24:40 -0400 X-Envelope-From: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Message-ID: <4673D63D.5020804@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:23:25 +0200 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070609 SeaMonkey/1.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oleg Verych CC: Adrian Bunk , Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Diego Calleja , Chuck Ebbert , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: regression tracking (Re: Linux 2.6.21) References: <20070426040806.GJ3468@stusta.de> <200704291849.23197.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070429173725.GB30248@one.firstfloor.org> <20070615234202.GP3588@stusta.de> <20070616013236.GA16016@flower.upol.cz> In-Reply-To: <20070616013236.GA16016@flower.upol.cz> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2728 Lines: 61 Oleg Verych wrote: > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: [...] >> This means going through every single point in the regression list >> asking "Have we tried everything possible to solve this regression?". [...] >> And a low hanging fruit to improve the release would be if you could >> release one last -rc, wait for 48 hours, and then release either this >> -rc unchanged as -final or another -rc (and wait another 48 hours). >> There were at least two different regressions people ran into in 2.6.21 >> who successfully tested -rc7. > > What about Linus' tree is a development tree, Andrew's one is a "crazy > development one" (quoting Linus)? [...] Linus also said that Andrew's tree is abused too often for broken stuff. My goal for the little driver subsystem I'm maintaining is - everything that Andrew pulls from me builds and runs and doesn't introduce regressions to my and the submitters' knowledge. I am slowly expanding my test procedures to catch things that fail that goal. - Everything that Linus pulls from me fulfills the above criteria and, in addition, had reasonable time and publication for test and review, depending on the kind of patch. I had a few regressions in Linus' releases. None of them were known before release. All of them were debugged and fixed rather soon after report, AFAIR. So what _I_ need is neither better regression tracking nor more manpower for debugging of regression reports. What I need is more own spare time and equipment for tests, more own knowledge and experience, and more people who run-time test -rc kernels or at least my subsystem updates on top of older kernels. (Note, I'm talking only about regressions here, not old bugs. There my requirements are different; the by far most important one is more manpower for debugging and fixing.) Well, if _other_ subsystems would get regressions in Linus' tree fixed quicker, there might perhaps be more people who would consider to run -rc kernels and would catch and report "my" regressions. [Oleg, sorry that I too digressed from the subject of your thread, but your remark about "[crazy] development tree"s caught my eye. IMO people should care for quality already in Andrew's tree --- more so than at the moment.] [Adrian, I'm not saying "too few users run -rc kernels", I'm saying "too few FireWire driver users run -rc kernels".] -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== -==- =---- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - 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/