linux-kernel - Re: Linux v2.6.27-rc1: linux-next

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 1 Aug 2008 00:22:36 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: Linux v2.6.27-rc1: linux-next

On Wednesday, 30 of July 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> >  - I don't think the 'next' thing works as well for the occasional 
> >    developer that just has a few patches pending as it works for subsystem 
> >    maintainers that are used to it.
> 
> Those people's patches are in -mm, which now holds maybe 100 or more
> "trees", many of which are small or empty.
> 
> My project within the next couple of weeks is to get most of that
> material into linux-next.  Stephen will be involved ;)
> 
> >    IOW, I think 'next' needs enough infrastructure setup from the 
> >    developer side that I don't think it's reasonable for _everything_ to 
> >    go through next.
> 
> True.  But
> 
> a) some of the problematic changes which we've seen simply _should_
>    have been in linux-next.  Some of them were even coming from
>    developers whose trees are already in linux-next.
> 
> b) A lot of the bugs which hit your tree would have been quickly
>    found in linux-next too.
> 
> 
> But it's all shuffling deckchairs, really.  Are we actually merging
> better code as a reasult of all of this?  Are we being more careful and
> reviewing better and testing better?
> 
> Don't think so.

Well, if the number of the regressions list entries can be regarded as a
pointer, then yes, we are. :-)

There are 28 entries in there right now, compared to 53 entries initially in
the list during the 2.6.26 cycle (see
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11167 for reference).

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/