From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261997AbVADDMR (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 22:12:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262000AbVADDMR (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 22:12:17 -0500 Received: from eth0-0.arisu.projectdream.org ([194.158.4.191]:44192 "EHLO b.mx.projectdream.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261997AbVADDMM (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 22:12:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 04:12:29 +0100 From: Thomas Graf To: "Theodore Ts'o" , Bill Davidsen , Adrian Bunk , Diego Calleja , Willy Tarreau , wli@holomorphy.com, aebr@win.tue.nl, solt2@dns.toxicfilms.tv, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 Message-ID: <20050104031229.GE26856@postel.suug.ch> References: <20050103134727.GA2980@stusta.de> <20050103183621.GA2885@thunk.org> <20050103185927.C3442@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20050104002452.GA8045@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050104002452.GA8045@thunk.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Theodore Ts'o <20050104002452.GA8045@thunk.org> 2005-01-03 19:24 > On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 06:59:27PM +0000, Russell King wrote: > > It is also the model we used until OLS this year - there was a 2.6 > > release about once a month prior to OLS. Post OLS, it's now once > > every three months or there abouts, which, IMO is far too long. > > I was thinking more about every week or two (ok, two releases in a day > like we used to do in the 2.3 days was probably too freequent :-), but > sure, even going to a once-a-month release cycle would be better than > the current 3 months between 2.6.x releases. It definitely satifies many of the impatients but it doesn't solve the stability problem. Many bugs do not show up on developer machines until just right after the release (as you pointed out already). rc releases don't work out as expected due to various reasons, i think one of them is that rc releases don't get announced on the newstickers, extra work is required to patch the kernel etc. What about doing a test release just before releasing the final version. I'm not talking about yet another 2 weeks period but rather just 2-3 days and at most 2 bk releases in between. Full tarball must be available to make it as easy as possible. I'm quite sure there are a lot of willing testers simply too lazy to take a shot at every single rc release. If things get really worse and huge fixes are required the final release could be defered in favour of another rc cycle.