Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756654AbYLKNsk (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:48:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755455AbYLKNsc (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:48:32 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:42104 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755438AbYLKNsb (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:48:31 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:48:25 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.28-rc8 Message-ID: <20081211134825.GA26448@elte.hu> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2588 Lines: 65 * Linus Torvalds wrote: > Nothing overly exciting here. Lots of small things, mostly in drivers > (with some defconfig updates for m68k and mips making the diffs > bigger). > > There's some uncomfortably big changes to the intel DRI code, but most > of that is all about fixes to the new i916 "GEM" code that is only used > by development X servers, and is a new feature, so it shouldn't be able > to cause regressions. > > Perhaps more interesting is simply the release scheduling issue. I'm > getting slowly ready to do a real 2.6.28, but I don't think anybody > really wants the merge window to be around the holidays. So the > question is really whether to > > (a) just make the -rc's go on a few more weeks, and do 2.6.28 after xmas > > I like this, because alledgely people are debugging things, and we'd > get a more stable 2.6.28. i'd really vote for a) because there's nothing worse to overlap xmas with than with merge window stress. A couple of key developers wont be around either in that timeframe (whose stuff is pending) - making early reaction to breakage in the merge window rather laggy and awkward. A Dec 31 release would be perfect [ 84 days will have passed by then since v2.6.27 which was released on Oct 9 ] and we would start 2009 exactly on point on the planned 3-months / 90 days schedule. Here's our release cycle track record, and how much it deviates from the max-90-days target: 2.6.28: 64 days [today] on 31th: 84 days -6 days 2.6.27: 88 -2 days 2.6.26: 87 -3 days 2.6.25: 83 -7 days 2.6.24: 107 +17 days 2.6.23: 92 +2 days 2.6.22: 73 -17 days 2.6.21: 80 -10 days 2.6.20: 66 -26 days 2.6.19: 70 -20 days 2.6.18: 94 +4 days 2.6.17: 89 -1 day 2.6.16: 76 -14 days 2.6.15: 67 -23 days 2.6.14: 60 -30 days 2.6.13: 72 -18 days We lost two and a half weeks with 2.6.24 that was released belatedly on Jan 24 - we've made up all the ground for that already. And the killer argument: there's nothing better to mask a nasty Jan 1 hangover with than with some merge window stress ;-) Ingo -- 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/