On Mon, 05 Dec 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
> >I do think the old model was better; by holding down major changes for
> >six months or so after a new even release came out, people had a chance
> >to polich the stable release, and developers had time to recharge their
> >batteries so to speak, and to sit and think about what they wanted to
> >do, without feeling the pressure to write code and submit it right away.
> >Knowing that there's no place to send code for six months is a great aid
> >to generating GOOD code.
>
> It never worked that way, which is why the model changed.
>
> Like it or not, developers would only focus on one release. In the old
> model, unstable things would get shoved into the stable kernel, because
> people didn't want to wait six months. And for the unstable kernel, it
> would often be so horribly broken that even developers couldn't use it
> for development (think 2.5.x IDE).
So why haven't the broken patches (yes, TCQ and all that, too) been
backed out at the time?
--
Matthias Andree
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[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]
