Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:31:43PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 04:58:05PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
"no regressions" is definitely not feasible.
14 known regressions, some of them not yet debugged at all, are
different from your "some small regression".
Yes, but when were some of these regressions reported? Past a certain
point, I think it's reasonable to look at the regression, decide how
many people would be affected by it, and why it hadn't been noticed
earlier, and in some cases, decide that it's better to get this
debugged and fixed in the stable and development trees in parallel.
8 of them have been reported in March or earlier. [1]
Patches for 2 of these 8 were available at the time of the release. [2]
While the question whether to merge one of them into 2.6.21 was
controversial, the other one was not controversial.
For one of the bugs, it became obvious when someone looked at it after
the release of 2.6.21 that between the bug report on March 31th and the
release of 2.6.21 on April 21th, noone started debugging this bug. [3] [4]
And look e.g. at the many (and non-trivial) changes between -rc7 and
-final, resulting in more than one report from people who were running
-rc7 without problems - and 2.6.21 doesn't work for them.
I agree that's unfortunate.
It's not a choice between "regressions don't matter" and "no regressions",
it's about the place in the area between these two extremes. I have my
opinions on what I want to expect from a stable Linux kernel, and other
people have different opinins.
Everyone is going to disagree to some extent; and their own comfort
zone. So a certain amount compromise is always going to be necessary.
Of course, it's up to you decide whether this has gone beyond the zone
where you aren't comfortable working with other people's development
style.
Regards,
- Ted
cu
Adrian
[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/26/2
[2] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/25/496
[3] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/26/496
[4] and although it turned out this specific regression was already
fixed in 2.6.21, I hope you get my point
What Adrian was doing, or anybody in the future, is not going to be
productive unless
Linus holds the people who are responsible for the bug to get it fixed
or report why they
can't.
My $.02
Steve
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin)
"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty
decreases." (Thomas Jefferson)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
