On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 09:03:39PM +1100, Grant Coady wrote:
> By stable I mean rate of change of codebase, patch volume per month,
> 2.6 is orders of magnitude less stable than 2.4 by that simple measure.
That is no measure of stability.
If, say, I merge a large patch in order to support ARM SMP and Linus
takes that, let's say for the sake of argument that's a 10MB diff.
It doesn't touch anything other than files which are solely built or
used for the ARM architecture.
Are you going to claim that the kernel is, therefore, unstable on
x86?
So, by your very comment above, if all the updates to non-x86
architectures were prevented from happening in mainline, you'd have
a much more stable kernel.
Uh huh. There's a saying about comparing apples and oranges which
springs to mind here - did you miss that lesson?
(Please do _not_ cc or reply directly to me in this thread - I'll
read replies from the mailing list, thanks.)
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
-
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]
