On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 16:03 +0200, [email protected] wrote: > On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, jerome lacoste wrote: > Because i like to test new kernels. On 2.4 I run the vanila kernel and a > test kernel. When something went wrong on a test kernel was always a > stable kernel to use. > 2.6 looks a lot like 2.5. New features are added very quickly without much > testing. Of course there is Andrew's -mm tree but this one sometimes > is too broken. > For me linux looks now like it has one unstable tree (2.6) which is > something like -ac was in days of 2.4 and -mm was in the days of 2.4 > -2.5 and -mm which looks like it became very unstable. > This is what i saw ok lkml (maybe my view is distorted). > I'll stop ranting and try both of them because i have some bugs to report. Man, -mm are unstable kernels, 2.6.x[.y] are the stable ones. > The 2.6.x.y kernels sometimes are almost no different from 2.6.x That's true, and good. the .y is the -stable tree, that is supposed to add only stability and security fixes. -- Marcos Marado <[email protected]> Novis ISP
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- References:
- New Linux Development Model
- From: hostmaster <[email protected]>
- Re: New Linux Development Model
- From: Jean Delvare <[email protected]>
- Re: New Linux Development Model
- From: Edgar Hucek <[email protected]>
- Re: New Linux Development Model
- From: jerome lacoste <[email protected]>
- Re: New Linux Development Model
- From: jerome lacoste <[email protected]>
- Re: New Linux Development Model
- From: [email protected]
- Re: New Linux Development Model
- From: jerome lacoste <[email protected]>
- Re: New Linux Development Model
- From: [email protected]
- New Linux Development Model
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 06/25] mtd: move ioctl32 code to mtdchar.c
- Next by Date: Re: 2.6.14-git4 suspend fails: kernel NULL pointer dereference
- Previous by thread: Re: New Linux Development Model
- Next by thread: Re: New Linux Development Model
- Index(es):