On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 15:54, John Bradford wrote:
> Likewise with kernel releases - fewer, larger releases work fine and
> mean less effort for developers, unless something breaks, in which
> case there is a lot to go through to locate the problem, and people
> who can't boot the broken kernel have to wait longer to test other
> things that were newly merged in that release.
This was exactly what I was getting at. I suspect that there are a good
number of people that try to boot a 2.5 kernel for testing, run into
immediate problems, and shelve the idea of 2.5 testing for a couple of
months because of an immediate appearance that 2.5 is too unstable to
test. I've seen frequent griping that not enough testing happens, the
idea is to get it to a point where more people can test it _without_
adding a huge delay or making a huge gap between releases.
On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 15:38, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Outside suggestions to "improve" Linus's workflow usually fall upon deaf
> ears...
Since Linus hasn't chimed in yet, I'm guessing that's exactly what
happened. I'm not trying to improve his workflow, but rather the
workflow of anyone who might be interested in getting more involved in
2.5 testing.
-Paul Larson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:00:49 EST