Re: 2.5.60 cheerleading...

From: Paul Larson (
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 13:04:43 EST

On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 11:11, John Bradford wrote:
> > > Nothing stops people from LTPtesting the -bk nightlies.
> > > Sure, they won't catch the last-minute-torvalds-breaks-the-compile
> > > type bugs, but for the most part it should be useful enough info.
> > Already been doing that for a long time now. How about a quick note out
> > to lkml that says "The current bk is what I'm going to release at <NN
> > Time> today unless someone gives me a good reason not to."?
> Why? That would just delay releases, and make more work for Linus.
What I just suggested would be a short 1 line note to lkml. I know he's
very busy, but what's that, like 10 seconds?

> If a release is badly broken, another one is usually quick to follow
> it, anyway.
There's usually a lag of 30min to an hour between the last changeset and
the the one that changes the version tag anyway. I would
hope/assume(dangerous) this is when it's beeing built and tested. One
more script to that mix that runs a subset of ltp might add an
additional 5 min. Alternatively, a note of intent to lkml might add a
few seconds to that delay.

If I counted timezones etc. right, here's a quick picture of the number
of minutes between the last changeset and the changeset that tagged it
with the version number:
2.5.60 52 min.
2.5.59 42 min.
2.5.58 31 min.
2.5.57 16 min.
 *** 2.5.58 was release something like 12 hours later

Is it less work to do a few minutes of extra testing, or go through
another release in the same day?

-Paul Larson

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:00:48 EST