linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.19 -mm merge plans

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <200609211310.43634.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:10:43 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.19 -mm merge plans

On Thursday, 21 September 2006 08:48, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:36:55 -0400
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
> 
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > If you think that shortening the release cycle will cause people to be more
> > > disciplined in their changes, to spend less time going berzerk and to spend
> > > more time working with our users and testers on known bugs then I'm all
> > > ears.
> > 
> > Honestly, I do think it would be positive.  It would shorten the 
> > feedback loop, and get more changes out to testers.
> > 
> > It would also decrease the pressure of the 60+ trees trying to get 
> > everything in, because they know the next release is 3-4 months away. 
> > It would be _much_ easier to say "break the generic device stuff in 
> > 2.6.20 not 2.6.19, please" if we knew 2.6.20 wasn't going to be a 2007 
> > release.
> > 
> 
> Well, it might be worth trying.  But there's a practical problem: how do we
> get there when there's so much work pending?  If we skip some people's
> trees then they'll get sore, and it's not obvious that it'll help much, as
> the various trees are fairly unrelated (ie: parallelisable).
> 
> I guess the most practical way is to incrementally shorten the cycles.
> 
> 
> <rerererepeating self>
> 
> I do think that any process change we make should send the signal "slow
> down, be more careful, test and review it more carefully".  Or at least,
> "try to make sure it compiles".
> 
> A compulsory Reviewed-by: would wedge things up nicely ;)

Well, I think this need not help.  Like when some USB-related changes that
had been reviewed and even tested happened to break ohci-hcd because they
had only been tested on uhci ...

IMHO every change should appear in at least three consecutive -mm kernels
without causing any problems before it's allowed to go to the mainline.

Greetings,
Rafael


-- 
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
		R. Buckminster Fuller
-
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/