Re: Linux 2.6.21

[Adrian Bunk]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:33:30AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 00:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > And it failed because many regressions still stayed unfixed and some 
> > even undebugged.
> 
> No it failed not. It is not perfect. Way more bugs, which have been
> fixed or are in the debugging process, would have been unnoticed and
> ignored otherwise.
>...

It depends on what you consider failure and what you consider success.

For me, it failed. Not because it wasn't perfect, but because we could 
have done much better with fixing the known regressions, and also by not 
introducing several regressions between the last -rc and the final 
kernel (and people who did test -rc7 and would most likely also have 
tested an -rc8 ran into them).

> 	tglx

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/