From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
To: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
Cc: Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>,
Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com
Subject: Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: PROBLEM: Kernel Panic on 2.5.6 and 2.5.7-pre1 boot [PATCH] and discussion of Linux testing procedures
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:03:44 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200203131703.g2DH3ij6019570@foo-bar-baz.cc.vt.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:09:52 EST." <Pine.GSO.4.21.0203130903470.22930-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0203130903470.22930-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2172 bytes --]
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:09:52 EST, Alexander Viro said:
> Proposal is a bit naive, though - in most of the cases fuckups merrily
> pass original testing.
We're not going to create a testing procedure that will find all bugs,
since that's essentially impossible. On the other hand, I think we
all need to collectively take 24 or 48 hour off, spend the time downing
several <insert beverage here>, and see if anybody has a good proposal
that would catch 90% of the show-stopper bugs that have slipped through
so far in the 2.4 and 2.5 series, without complicating matters TOO much.
Here's a simple one: a -rcN release has to sit there at least 96
hours before it gets tagged as "final". That's something we've been
quite poor at so far:
rel final last -pre rel delay
2.4.1 29 Jan 23:56 -pre12 29 Jan 10:16 13h40m
2.4.2 21 Feb 17:00 -pre4 16 Feb 11:17 5d 3h45m (2 weekend days)
2.4.3 29 Mar 21:03 -pre8 25 Mar 20:08 4d 1h
2.4.4 27 Apr 18:43 -pre8 26 Apr 10:58 1d 7h45m
2.4.5 25 May 18:26 -pre6 24 May 17:47 1d 0h45m
2.4.6 03 Jul 17:07 -pre9 02 Jul 17:41 23h45m (all on weekend)
2.4.7 20 Jul 14:25 -pre9 19 Jul 22:03 16h22m
2.4.8 10 Aug 21:13 -pre8 09 Aug 17:34 1d 3h45m
2.4.9 16 Aug 11:32 -pre4 14 Aug 19:06 1d 16h24m
2.4.10 23 Sep 11:30 -pre15 22 Sep 20:58 14h32m (all on weekend)
2.4.11 09 Oct 16.55 -pre6 08 Oct 14:18 1d 2h37m
2.4.12 11 Oct 00:59 <none> -- -----
2.4.13 23 Oct 22:28 -pre6 21 Oct 10:54 1d 11h30m (1 weekend day)
2.4.14 05 Nov 15:30 -pre8 03 Nov 17:42 1d 21h45m (2 weekend days)
2.4.15 22 Nov 22:18 -pre9 21 Nov 22:46 23h28m
2.4.16 26 Nov 05:32 -pre1 24 Nov 12:05 1d 17h27m (2 weekend days)
2.4.17 21 Dec 09:52 -rc2 18 Dec 13:38 2d 18h14m
2.4.18 25 Feb 11:40 -rc4 22 Feb 04:28 3d 7h12m (2 weekend days)
So even in many cases where there *were* 2 or 3 day waits, they were
across a weekend - which means quite likely a lot of people didn't
test because they were *home* having *lives*.
Think about it. "Just wait 96 hours".
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-03-13 17:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-03-13 10:02 Hans Reiser
2002-03-13 13:50 ` Rik van Riel
2002-03-13 13:57 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-03-13 14:09 ` Alexander Viro
2002-03-13 14:18 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-03-13 17:03 ` Valdis.Kletnieks [this message]
2002-03-13 17:44 ` [reiserfs-list] " Alexander Viro
2002-03-13 18:46 ` Hans Reiser
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200203131703.g2DH3ij6019570@foo-bar-baz.cc.vt.edu \
--to=valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=dalecki@evision-ventures.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=reiser@namesys.com \
--cc=reiserfs-list@namesys.com \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
--cc=viro@math.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®