On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jun 22 2007 00:29, Jesper Juhl wrote:
On 21/06/07, Zoltán HUBERT <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
All people who might read this know that traditionally
stable releases are even numbered and development branches
are odd numbered. This changed during late develoment of
2.6, according to my analysis because of the "invention" of
GIT which was itself necessary because of BitKeeper (insert
ooooooooold flame-wars here) and which allowed very dynamic
develoment.
[...]
I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
regression fixing, but I'm not so sure that a 2.6.7 devel branch would
solve this. In general the 2.6.x.y -stable kernels seem to be doing
the job pretty good.
For my part, I think the 2.6.<odd> did not go as well as the 2.6.<even>,
beginning with x=16.
you misunderstood the even/odd it was never 2.x.y with y odd/even being
stable / development, it was the x being even/odd to indicate stable /
development.
all 2.6.x are stable, all 2.5.x were development.
David Lang
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
