Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version.

[Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 07:15:49 +0300
Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> wrote:

> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> wrote:
> > > Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > > The problem is not just simple bugs that surface, it's deeper than
> > > > > that. Deep structural problems is what plagues 2.6.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only a focused model may deal with such problems.
> > > >
> > > > can you at least provide a list of such structural problems?
> > > > In fact, why don't you collect them and mail them out (bi)weekly...
> > > > that may already do wonders.
> > > > Look at what Adrian is doing with the regressions; although the
> > > > response isn't 100% people DO pay attention to it.... so maybe if you
> > > > post a "structural problems list" people will actually start working
> > > > on things.. (and of course you can help too ;)
> > >
> > > Ok, things like OOM, scheduling, and block-io.
> >
> > If you want stability don't change these.  But if you think you
> > have better heuristics propose them for discussion.
> 
> I don't think there is a lack of heuristics, nor is there a lack of 
> discussion.  What is needed, is a realization of the problem.
> 
> IOW, respective tree-owners need to come to a realization of the state of 
> their trees, problem or not.  If it has a problem, that problem needs to be 
> fixed or backed out of stable and moved into dev.
> 
> > > net looks ok, although I would suggest a redesign for 3.0.
> >
> > Facts, no vague pronouncements please.
> 
> I meant structural OSI compliance.

Read the book "Network Algorithmics"; it has a clear discussion
of why building your stack like the protocol specification
is a bad idea.
> 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/