Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757245Ab0GMUp0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:45:26 -0400 Received: from hawking.rebel.net.au ([203.20.69.83]:46415 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754289Ab0GMUpY (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:45:24 -0400 Message-ID: <4C3CD060.50904@davidnewall.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 06:15:20 +0930 From: David Newall User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Theodore Tso CC: Marcin Letyns , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: stable? quality assurance? References: <201007110918.42120.Martin@lichtvoll.de> <20100711131640.GA3503@thunk.org> <4C3ABA35.7020507@davidnewall.com> <4C3B3B39.2000809@davidnewall.com> <4735EF77-6C7D-46D6-8C2B-C910A2D662D2@mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <4735EF77-6C7D-46D6-8C2B-C910A2D662D2@mit.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1748 Lines: 34 Theodore Tso wrote: > What this means is yes that stable basically means, "stable > for the core kernel developers". You can say that this isn't > correct, and maybe even dishonest, but if we wait until 2.6.34.N > before we call a release "stable", and this discourages users > from testing 2.6.34.M for M be found and fixed. > Calling it stable instils and reinforces a Pavlovian response in typical users, that recent Linux kernels are dangerous and unreliable; one year old was suggested as a safe benchmark. Typical users being 99% of the population, testing hardly begins until a kernel is "sufficiently old." This Pavlovian response is what really delays finding and fixing bugs. Being up-front and saying which kernels are likely to fail would help many users calculate the risk and improve their willingness to try newer kernels. "Sufficiently old" might well come down to six months, maybe four. That is to say, instead of taking a year to pass gamma-testing, new kernels could be passed in six months or less. That would be a big improvement in stability and quality assurance however you dice it. > But demanding that kernel.org become "more stable" when it > is supported by purely volunteers is simply not reasonable. Let's not be hysterical; nobody made any demands. Semantics aside, the suggestion is reasonable because it affects developers' workloads not one whit. The only change is the label that Linus applies to new releases. -- 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/