[U-Boot] [RFC] MW rule and its period

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Masahiro,

In message <CAMhH57R2eBf26ONYD4fnLRWDQ=Bjy_0CRLM_yOPrZGdMwOQF9g at mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
> 
> Even Linux needs 7 weeks to be stabilized
> in spite of much more commits than U-Boot.
> 
> Do we really need 10 weeks?

I think a fundamental difference between Linux and U-Boot is that in
Linux the actual core is not changing so heavily, and the individual
subsystems are much better isolated.  In U-Boot, we have a large
number commits with architecture-wide impact, not to mention
system-wide ones like the Kconfig / Kbuild or DM restructuring.
So a bug introduced in Linux will often affect only a relatively small
group of developers, while the rest can continue working basically
unaffected.  In U-Boot it's easy to break all ARM, which will bring
the majority of developers to a full stop.

Also I think reducing the MW makes things indeed faster, which means
more frequent release cycles, and I'm afraid in the end the custodians
will not find their days easier, but more loaded.

Just my $0.02.

> So two options here I'd like to suggest
> 
> [1] Every 2 months release with 2 weeks MW
> 
> MW open: 2 weeks
> MW closed: 6.5 weeks
> 
> [2] Every 3 months release with 7 weeks MW
> 
> MW open: 7 weeks
> MW closed: 6 weeks

I think 2 (...3) weeks of MW work pretty well for U-Boot; we should
not need more.  Keeping the MW open too long just increases to efforts
to make everything ready for release.  So in my opinion it boild sown
if we want to shorten the release cycle as such.  I guess we whould
have to try it out, but I fear it might easily backfire.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of  program  docu-
mentation.              -- Frederick Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month"