[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201007112338.28693.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:38:28 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: stable? quality assurance?
On Sunday, July 11, 2010, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 04:51:42PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > I hope that someone answers who actually can take some critique. From the
> > current replies I perceive a lack of that ability.
>
> well, I'll try to do then :-)
>
> There were some threads in the past about kernel releases quality,
> where Linus explained why it could not be completely black or white.
>
> Among the things he explained, I remember that one of primary concern
> was the inability to slow down development. I mean, if he waits 2 more
> weeks for things to stabilize, then there will be two more weeks of
> crap^H^H^H^Hdevelopment merged in next merge window, so in fact this
> will just shift dates and not quality.
...
> It's not really advisable to call dot-0 releases "unstable" because
> it will only result in shifting the adoption point between the user
> classes above.
IMnshO it's not exactly fair to call them "stable" either. I tend to call them
"major releases" which basically reflects what they are - events in the
development process that each start a new merge window. Nothing more, either
way.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists