Andreas Mohr wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 11:40:27PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > Let me make one very clear statement first: -stabel is a GREAT think
> > and it is working VERY well.
> > That being said, many of the fixes I see going into -stable are
> > regression fixes. Maybe not the majority, but still, regression fixes
> > going into -stable tells me that the kernel should have seen more
> > testing/bugfixing before being declared a stable release.
>
> Nice theory, but of course I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't work
Agreed.
> (as has been said numerous time before by other people).
>
> You cannot do endless testing/bugfixing, it's a psychological issue.
Agreed.
> If you do that, then you end up with -preXX (or worse, -preXXX)
> version numbers, which would cause too many people to wait and wait
> and wait with upgrading until "that next stable" kernel version
> finally becomes available.
> IOW, your tester base erodes, awfully, and development progress stalls.
IMHO, the psycho-problem is that you cannot intertwine development and stable
in the same cycle. In that respect, the 2.6 development cycle is a real
flop, as it does not allow for focus.
And focus is needed to achieve stability.
Think catch22...
Thanks!
--
Al
-
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]
