On 10/11/06, Al Boldi <[email protected]> wrote:
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
[...]
> There are bugfixes which are too big for stable or -rc releases, that are
> queued for 2.6.20. "Bugfix only" is a relative statement. Do you include,
> new hardware support, new security api's, performance fixes. It gets to
> be real hard to decide, because these are the changes that often cause
> regressions; often one major bug fix causes two minor bugs.
That's exactly the point I'm trying to get across; the 2.6 dev model tries to
be two cycles in one, dev and stable, which yields an awkward catch22
situation.
The only sane way forward in such a situation is to realize the mistake and
return to the focused dev-only / stable-only model.
This would probably involve pushing the current 2.6 kernel into 2.8 and
starting 2.9 as a dev-cycle only, once 2.8 has structurally stabilized.
That was not what I was arguing for in the initial mail at all.
I think the 2.6 model works very well in general. All I was pushing
for was a single cycle focused mainly on bug fixes once in a while.
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
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]
