From: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>
To: John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com>
Cc: jw@pegasys.ws, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.21-rc8
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 13:29:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030613132931.64125055.skraw@ithnet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200306120859.h5C8xuh7000958@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk>
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:59:56 +0100
John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com> wrote:
> > Saying it is a bad idea to release a kernel with known bugs
> > is like saying it is a bad idea to buy a computer when the
> > price will be going down soon. Would you care to delay
> > 2.4.21 until next spring or would you rather get the fixes
> > it contains today and have 2.4.22 with your pet fix on
> > (hopefully) a scale of weeks?
>
> A lot of the known bugs have fixes which appear to be OK, but haven't
> really had enough testing to go in to a -final tree. A lot of them
> won't have been tested on SMP boxes for example.
One of the more important things in kernel development - according to my
personal opinion - is the fact that there is _one_ main tree and you may well
ignore others. The more you split up, the less testing there will be. There is
only a certain amount of people that really use not-released kernels. If you
produce more branches the total amount of tests done will not really increase
but rather decrease (per branch) because of the split-up.
Don't do that, please
And another thing is: your proposal seems to increase load on the maintree
maintainer. I don't think this is the right way to go. I would rather say the
subsytem maintainers should be more involved. Which means: if a subsystem does
not work as expected or the patches are a mess, then I'd say it's the maintree
maintainers job to kick the a** of the subsystem maintainer to solve it, and
not to solve the problem himself. Surely he can give hints and suggestions -
who wouldn't - but the work should be done by the maintainer. I think this is
the fundamental idea behind maintainership.
Regards,
Stephan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-06-13 11:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-06-12 8:59 John Bradford
2003-06-12 16:30 ` iain d broadfoot
2003-06-13 11:29 ` Stephan von Krawczynski [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-06-10 22:06 Marcelo Tosatti
2003-06-10 23:56 ` Frank Cusack
2003-06-11 0:10 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-06-11 21:15 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2003-06-12 6:27 ` Michael Knigge
2003-06-12 7:56 ` Jörn Engel
2003-06-12 8:09 ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-06-12 18:46 ` Aschwin Marsman
2003-06-12 8:17 ` jw schultz
2003-06-11 4:39 ` Lucas Correia Villa Real
2003-06-12 22:23 ` Jerome Chantelauze
2003-06-13 9:31 ` Alan Cox
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=20030613132931.64125055.skraw@ithnet.com \
--to=skraw@ithnet.com \
--cc=john@grabjohn.com \
--cc=jw@pegasys.ws \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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®