James Smart wrote:
However, I take issue with looking at line counts as the sole basis
for what's appropriate or not. It can be argued that some bug fixes may be
larger in scope than others, or patch batching so that the bug fix count is
higher will skew this perception. I also believe that more "lesser"
bugfixes
should be allowed in an earlier -rc? than later, so a hard-and-fast rule
for
line counts seem odd. Also - what's a bug fix ? There are many things
which are not "features" but are necessities for diagnosis or support of
the
larger change. Some of these you simply don't find in time to make sure
they
are in place for the -rc1 merge. Do you hold off on them, or do you make a
choice based risk/reward based on where the -rc is ? I vote for the latter.
I realize that the Linux kernel is such a beast overall that you must have
some simple guidelines, but basing it solely on numbers is a very bad
pitfall.
It's straightforward engineering math: the more LOC that changed, the
more important it is to /not/ stuff it into a stabilization release,
because of the greater potential for breaking stuff and negating all the
existing testing so far.
Once -rc1 is out there, that means the focus should be on stabilizing
the existing codebase. Pushing a big driver update means that effort
must restart from scratch. We just don't want to go down that road,
which a big reason for the merge window in general.
If you miss the merge window, tough cookies :) You gotta deal with it
just like I do, and everyone else does.
Remember -- the more disciplined we all are with the merge window, the
more likely it is that a release can be stabilized quickly, and thus,
the more quickly we will reach the next merge window.
In contrast, increasing violations of the merge window mean increasing
time between releases.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
