From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261553AbVADHnC (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 02:43:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262207AbVADHnB (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 02:43:01 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:1811 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261553AbVADHmy (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 02:42:54 -0500 Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Bill Davidsen Cc: Adrian Bunk , Rik van Riel , Andries Brouwer , William Lee Irwin III , Maciej Soltysiak , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <41D9D69C.1070002@tmr.com> References: <20050103153438.GF2980@stusta.de> <1697129508.20050102210332@dns.toxicfilms.tv> <1104767943.4192.17.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <41D9D69C.1070002@tmr.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:42:36 +0100 Message-Id: <1104824557.4215.1.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on canuck.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (4.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO 1.1 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > as long as more things get fixed than new bugs introduced (and that > > still seems to be the case) things only improve in 2.6. > > > > The joint approach also has major advantages, even for quality: > > All testing happens on the same codebase. > > Previously, the testing focus was split between the stable and unstable > > branch, to the detriment of *both*. > > You think so? I think the number of people testing the 2.4.xx-rc > versions AND the 2.6.xx-bkN versions is a small (nonzero) percentage of > total people trying any new release. I think people test what they plan > to use, so there's less competition for testers than you suggest. People > staying with 2.4 test that, people wanting or needing to move forward > test 2.6. > Actually I suspect the number of people testing 2.4.xx-rc is *really* small now. My point however was more towards a 2.6 / 2.7 split, where the people who want to test newest do 2.7 while people who want to test stable test 2.6; right now those two groups test basically the same codebase.