On 30/04/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:33:30AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 00:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > And it failed because many regressions still stayed unfixed and some
> > even undebugged.
>
> No it failed not. It is not perfect. Way more bugs, which have been
> fixed or are in the debugging process, would have been unnoticed and
> ignored otherwise.
>...
It depends on what you consider failure and what you consider success.
I hope that this discussion about bugs will change something in Linux
regressions front.
Huge thanks to you for that.
For me, it failed. Not because it wasn't perfect, but because we could
have done much better with fixing the known regressions, and also by not
introducing several regressions between the last -rc and the final
kernel (and people who did test -rc7 and would most likely also have
tested an -rc8 ran into them).
> tglx
cu
Adrian
Regards,
Michal
--
Michal K. K. Piotrowski
Kernel Monkeys
(http://kernel.wikidot.com/start)
-
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]
