* Sam Hocevar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070303 14:56]: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > To state it plainly: the blocker for the etch release for the past 2 months > > or so has been the kernel. This was known, and it was stated. > > > > I don't remember seeing anyone from outside the kernel team step forward to > > tackle any of the kernel's RC bugs. This is pretty understandable -- we > > already have a large kernel team, and the package is not exactly readily > > NMUable, so trying to focus the whole project's attention on the kernel > > sounds like a classic mythical-man-month recipe for disaster, in addition to > > being a pretty huge time investment for any outside developer because of the > > kernel package's high learning curve. So what do you think should have been > > done differently in terms of release management that would have helped keep > > the release target? > > Has going back to a 2.6.17 kernel been considered? There were > probably reasons to accept 2.6.18 only four days before base was frozen, > but that seems all the more questionable now that the new release itself > didn't seem to fix any bugs, yet introduced new ones (such as #410497).
Unfortunatly, 2.6.17 contains a whole bunch of other RC bugs that are fixed with 2.6.18. So, it has been considered, but the cure would be worse than the desease. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
