linux-kernel - Re: Slow DOWN, please!!!

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: <20080501050952.GA18597@1wt.eu>
Date:	Thu, 1 May 2008 07:09:52 +0200
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	Chris Shoemaker <c.shoemaker@....net>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, mingo@...e.hu,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jirislaby@...il.com
Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!!

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 08:15:00PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 01:12:21AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 12:39:01AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > In fact, so many changes go in at a time during a merge window, that we often
> > > can't really say which of them causes the breakage observed by testers and
> > > bisection, that IMO should really be a last-resort tool, is used on the main
> > > debugging techinque.
> > 
> > Maybe we could slightly improve the process by releasing more often, but
> > based on topics. Small sets of minimally-overlapping topics would get
> > merged in each release, and other topics would only be allowed to pull
> > fixes. That way everybody still gets some work merged, everybody tests
> > and problems are more easily spotted.
> > 
> > I know this is in part what Andrew tries to do when proposing to
> > integrate trees, but maybe some approximate rules should be proposed
> > in order for developers to organize their works. This would begin
> > with announcing topics to be considered for next branch very early.
> > This would also make it more natural for developers to have creation
> > and bug-tracking phases.
> 
> What would this look like, notionally?  Say the releases were twice as
> frequent with Stage A and Stage B.  How could the topic be grouped
> into the stages?  Could bugfixes of any type be merged in either
> window?  Would this only apply to "new" features, API changes, etc? or
> would maintenance-type changes have to be assigned to a stage, too?

bug fixes are of course always possible, just that we limit important
changes, i.e. the ones which randomly break and that take a lot of time
to track down because everyone has changed something.

> -chris

willy

--
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/