Re: 2.0.31 : please!

Geert Uytterhoeven (Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be)
Wed, 16 Jul 1997 13:43:21 +0200 (CEST)

On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Daniel G. Link wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > I think a "stable" kernel should be tested by some ten people with
> > > reasonably average configurations for about 24 hours.
> > > A "production" kernel should at least compile.
> >
> > 10 people. Some of the bugs that show up in 2.0.x show up in configurations
> > that maybe 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 users have and perhaps only after a
> > week of continual load. On a 10 user sample 2.0.30 is probably rock solid
>
> This is not valid for what I said about development kernels. In order to
> test if it compiles, it is only necessary to turn on all options that
> are not mutually exclusive and compile. Kernels 2.1.29 up to 2.1.41 (I

What to do with mutually exclusive options? Compile it with A enabled and B
disabled, and another time with A disabled and B enabled?

There are _lots_ of options that have small influences on each other. Compiling
kernels for all combinations will take much time...

> > A lot of people don't seem to realise just how tricky it is building a
> > stable across all platforms/configurations system.
>
> I do realize that. I'm saying there should be at least *SOME* sanity
> checks before releasing even a "development" kernel.

It ran on Linus' machine, which is one sanity check.

> Like I said, I would volunteer to test-compile 2.1.X kernels.

Have fun :-)

And don't forget to compile kernels for other architectures than ix86 ;-)

Greetings,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven                     Geert.Uytterhoeven@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Wavelets, Linux/m68k on Amiga          http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~geert/
Department of Computer Science -- Katholieke Universiteit Leuven -- Belgium