Re: new dev model (was Re: Default cache_hot_time value back to10ms)

[Ingo Molnar]

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> The _reality_ is that there is _no_ point in time where you and Linus
> allow for stabilization of the main tree prior to relesae. [...]

i dont think this is fair to Andrew - there's hundreds of patches in his
tree that are scheduled for 2.6.10 not 2.6.9.

you are right that -mm is experimental, but the latency of bugfixes is the
lowest i've ever seen in any Linux tree, which is quite amazing
considering the hundreds of patches.

it is also correct that the pile of patches in the -mm tree mask the QA
effects of testing done on -mm, so testing -BK separately is just as
important at this stage.

Maybe it would help perception and awareness-of-release a bit if at this
stage Andrew switched the -mm tree to the -BK tree and truly only kept
those patches that are destined for BK for 2.6.9. [i.e. if the current
patch-series would be cut off at patch #3 or so, but the numbering of
-rc3-mm3 would be keept.] This can only be done if the changes from now to
2.6.9-real are small enough in that they dont impact those 700 patches too
much.

This switching would immediately expose all -mm users to the current state
of affairs of the -BK tree. (yes, people could try the -BK tree just as
much but it seems -mm is used by developers quite often and it would help
if the two trees would be largely equivalent so close to the release.)

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/