From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0092FA for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 07:22:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f175.google.com (mail-ve0-f175.google.com [209.85.128.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 171C61F80A for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 07:22:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f175.google.com with SMTP id jw12so2003548veb.34 for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 00:22:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140516125611.06633446@notabene.brown> References: <20140516125611.06633446@notabene.brown> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 00:22:55 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dan Williams To: NeilBrown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] [nomination] Move Fast and Oops Things List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , [ speaking for myself ] On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 7:56 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2014 16:13:58 -0700 Dan Williams > wrote: > >> What would it take and would we even consider moving 2x faster than we >> are now? > > Hi Dan, > you seem to be suggesting that there is some limit other than "competent > engineering time" which is slowing Linux "progress" down. Where "progress" is "value delivered to users", yes. > Are you really suggesting that? Yes, look at -staging as the first step down this path. Functionality delivered to users while "upstream acceptance" happens in parallel. I'm arguing for a finer grained mechanism for staging functionality out to users. > What might these other limits be? Testing and audience. A simplistic example of moving slow is merging a feature only after it has proven to have a large enough audience. Or the opposite, spending development resources to polish and merge a dead-on-arrival solution, but only discovering that fact once exposed to wider distribution. > Certainly there are limits to minimum gap between conceptualisation and > release (at least one release cycle), but is there really a limit to the > parallelism that can be achieved? Again, in general, I think there are aspects of "upstream acceptance" that can done in parallel with delivering value to end users.