From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935383AbYEUP1Y (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 11:27:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758363AbYEUP1O (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 11:27:14 -0400 Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.28]:59135 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757035AbYEUP1O (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 11:27:14 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=nzkROP454r/pi0omFCfsRveADSntur0HDsDhOdlSr3ddTj0bHJgieqVlsv+eBGVqKkcjF+07+lsidvwJKZ0afAjK+KSRUmbrsedXHYMJ5cUrpVXe8dDjuQgbYB1Smh8UD2ktCaF3+MTknWL/FF1iN7pL0sdXQyMPhzv2YPVtdvU= Message-ID: <84144f020805210826p27c1892bxd84098371e209c1e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 18:26:56 +0300 From: "Pekka Enberg" To: "Tarkan Erimer" Subject: Re: Suggestion About Kernel Releases Cc: "Mike Snitzer" , "Arjan van de Ven" , lkml In-Reply-To: <48343C92.4090403@netone.net.tr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <48341ED5.7060508@netone.net.tr> <20080521063855.0bdb441c@infradead.org> <84144f020805210648y43efb024w8e2f28e62894b1d@mail.gmail.com> <48342B19.9040407@netone.net.tr> <170fa0d20805210732s24f2c188i75ab2ab2dab5aeb5@mail.gmail.com> <48343C92.4090403@netone.net.tr> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9a777990f80dc825 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Tarkan Erimer wrote: > It is. As I described above : the "testX" series will change the things as > producing more tested /stable releases. BTW, it should be much better to > release less, trouble free kernels instead of releasing fast but fixing > soon. You keep saying that but it simply is not true. The more people we have _waiting_ for a "stable" kernel to graduate from the "testing" series, the less people we have actually _testing_ the kernel. So it's probable that your suggestion actually makes the current situation worse, not better.