mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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®