From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261625AbVADN0e (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:26:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261659AbVADN0d (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:26:33 -0500 Received: from holomorphy.com ([207.189.100.168]:45190 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261625AbVADNYB (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:24:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:14:16 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Bill Davidsen , Adrian Bunk , Rik van Riel , Andries Brouwer , Maciej Soltysiak , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 Message-ID: <20050104131416.GF2708@holomorphy.com> References: <20050103153438.GF2980@stusta.de> <1697129508.20050102210332@dns.toxicfilms.tv> <1104767943.4192.17.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <41D9D69C.1070002@tmr.com> <1104824557.4215.1.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1104824557.4215.1.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At some point in the past, someone wrote: >>> 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*. At some point in the past, someone else wrote: >> 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. On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 08:42:36AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > 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. But this is a good thing; new code should meet the prior standards of stability and correctness as should the tree at all times. Efforts to recover it once it is lost to a large degree are doomed. -- wli