On Wednesday, 30 of July 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> >  - I don't think the 'next' thing works as well for the occasional 
> >    developer that just has a few patches pending as it works for subsystem 
> >    maintainers that are used to it.
> 
> Those people's patches are in -mm, which now holds maybe 100 or more
> "trees", many of which are small or empty.
> 
> My project within the next couple of weeks is to get most of that
> material into linux-next.  Stephen will be involved ;)
> 
> >    IOW, I think 'next' needs enough infrastructure setup from the 
> >    developer side that I don't think it's reasonable for _everything_ to 
> >    go through next.
> 
> True.  But
> 
> a) some of the problematic changes which we've seen simply _should_
>    have been in linux-next.  Some of them were even coming from
>    developers whose trees are already in linux-next.
> 
> b) A lot of the bugs which hit your tree would have been quickly
>    found in linux-next too.
> 
> 
> But it's all shuffling deckchairs, really.  Are we actually merging
> better code as a reasult of all of this?  Are we being more careful and
> reviewing better and testing better?
> 
> Don't think so.

Well, if the number of the regressions list entries can be regarded as a
pointer, then yes, we are. :-)

There are 28 entries in there right now, compared to 53 entries initially in
the list during the 2.6.26 cycle (see
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11167 for reference).

Thanks,
Rafael
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/