From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263154AbVGOCLV (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:11:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263117AbVGOCLI (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:11:08 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:23169 "EHLO mx2.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263154AbVGOCJT (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:09:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 04:09:14 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Jesper Juhl Cc: Chris Friesen , Andi Kleen , Mark Gross , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why is 2.6.12.2 less stable on my laptop than 2.6.10? Message-ID: <20050715020914.GQ23737@wotan.suse.de> References: <200507140912.22532.mgross@linux.intel.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <9a8748490507141845162c0f19@mail.gmail.com> <42D71950.20303@nortel.com> <9a8748490507141906fb7e5b@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9a8748490507141906fb7e5b@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > You can't test everything this way, nor should you, but you can test > many things, and adding a bit of formal testing to the release > procedure wouldn't be a bad thing IMO. In the linux model that's left to the distributions. In fact doing it properly takes months. You wouldn't want to wait months for a new mainline kernel. Formal testing is not really compatible with "release early, release often" You could do things like "run LTP first", but in practice LTP rarely finds bugs. -Andi