[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6bffcb0e0704291557l23f08d9as44ed55805c3fec18@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:57:00 +0200
From: "Michal Piotrowski" <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>
To: "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...sta.de>
Cc: "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Diego Calleja" <diegocg@...il.com>,
"Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Chuck Ebbert" <cebbert@...hat.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.21
On 30/04/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> 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 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists