From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031162AbXDZKo2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:44:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031164AbXDZKo2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:44:28 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.235]:9867 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031162AbXDZKo1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 06:44:27 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=flSFTAEWX0vxcS4fZ1xhWXuKKkJWfSFQixEPjMEXFt5ThNCsK6SvlqvzNvZ2wRNPVM5Mztdo6bllG6EMfFVo3bXTl3SSIYSF6OHxVRXcN1jNYYwZ7VxnIimwbzi87JE1UxtPUeRg9rsb43eDLQxmk3qh2UkcESQABnrQrB6yhtU= Message-ID: <9a8748490704260344y72551a9w97609ca44f242019@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:44:25 +0200 From: "Jesper Juhl" To: "Adrian Bunk" Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.21 Cc: "Linus Torvalds" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" In-Reply-To: <20070426040806.GJ3468@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070426040806.GJ3468@stusta.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 26/04/07, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:29:28PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >... > > So it's been over two and a half months, and while it's certainly not the > > longest release cycle ever, it still dragged out a bit longer than I'd > > have hoped for and it should have. As usual, I'd like to thank Adrian (and > > the people who jumped on the entries Adrian had) for keeping everybody on > > their toes with the regression list - there's a few entries there still, > > but it got to the point where we didn't even know if they were real > > regressions, and delaying things further just wasn't going to help. > >... > > > Number of different known regressions compared to 2.6.20 at the time > of the 2.6.21 release: > 14 > > Number of different known regressions compared to 2.6.20 at the time > of the 2.6.21 release that were first reported in March or earlier: > 8 > > Number of different known regressions compared to 2.6.20 at the time > of the 2.6.21 release with patches available at the time of the 2.6.21 > release [1]: > 3 > > What I will NOT do: > Waste my time with tracking 2.6.22-rc regressions. > > > We have an astonishing amount of -rc testers, but obviously not the > developer manpower for handling them. > > If we would take "no regressions" seriously, it might take 4 or 5 months > between releases due to the lack of developer manpower for handling > regressions. But that should be considered OK if avoiding regressions > was considered more important than getting as quick as possible to the > next two week regression-merge window. > > But releasing with so many known regressions is insulting for the many > people who spent their time testing -rc kernels. > Many people have already said this, but it needs saying again. You are doing a great job that really helps, both with the regression lists and the trivial patch monkey stuff. Please keep up the good work, you are really helping the kernel. -- Jesper Juhl Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html