Kernel release status
Full details can be found in the changelog.
According to the latest regression report, the number of
unresolved regressions has risen to 31, the highest point yet in this
development cycle.
Posted Feb 18, 2010 4:11 UTC (Thu)
by eparis123 (guest, #59739)
[Link] (3 responses)
.. the number of unresolved regressions has risen to 31 .. I'm no expert in managing huge projects, but I always wondered if
releasing
a project with big number of regressions, to meet a certain deadline, is the
best approach possible. Can
more experienced people comment on this?
Posted Feb 18, 2010 9:03 UTC (Thu)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
after some point, delaying the release doesn't make it much better, but makes the next release significantly worse. This is because people don't stop developing new stuff when a release is delayed, so there gets to be more and more new stuff in the next version.
as I see it, when several people start posting large patchsets for inclusion into the next kernel cycle it's about time to cut loose (unless there is a significant known problem)
this started happening about a week ago.
Posted Feb 18, 2010 11:59 UTC (Thu)
by njd27 (subscriber, #5770)
[Link]
Posted Feb 19, 2010 15:17 UTC (Fri)
by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
[Link]
There's also the fact that kernels don't get as much adoption (and therefore, as widespread testing) before whatever is marked as "the release" as they get after, which means that there's a point where most of the regressions in a kernel aren't being worked on because they haven't been discovered yet. There's little point in delaying a release until *all* of the regressions haven't been discovered yet. Also, when Linus does a release, it's a good time for developers of features which are taking several cycles to stabilize to merge mainline into their work (if that happens too frequently, their history gets messy and they start needing to include fixes for other people's bugs in order to keep working), which means that there's a segment of developers who only run a kernel derived from 2.6.x-rcN on the development systems when 2.6.x is released, which in turn means that producing a 2.6.x-rcN-derived kernel with few regressions depends on getting 2.6.x out first.
In general, you get good long-term quality and steady improvement by having a mainline frequently open for bleeding-edge development with a trailing edge that picks up regression fixes before it picks up new features.
Releasing with high number of regressions?
Releasing with high number of regressions?
Releasing with high number of regressions?
Releasing with high number of regressions?