| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0804301325260.2980@woody.linux-foundation.org> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:31:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jirislaby@...il.com Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > <jumps up and down> > > There should be nothing in 2.6.x-rc1 which wasn't in 2.6.x-mm1! The problem I see with both -mm and linux-next is that they tend to be better at finding the "physical conflict" kind of issues (ie the merge itself fails) than the "code looks ok but doesn't actually work" kind of issue. Why? The tester base is simply too small. Now, if *that* could be improved, that would be wonderful, but I'm not seeing it as very likely. I think we have fairly good penetration these days with the regular -git tree, but I think that one is quite frankly a *lot* less scary than -mm or -next are, and there it has been an absolutely huge boon to get the kernel into the Fedora test-builds etc (and I _think_ Ubuntu and SuSE also started something like that). So I'm very pessimistic about getting a lot of test coverage before -rc1. Maybe too pessimistic, who knows? Linus -- 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