Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0

[david@lang.hm]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> On Jun 22 2007 00:29, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > On 21/06/07, Zoltán HUBERT <zoltan.hubert@zzaero.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > All people who might read this know that traditionally
> > > stable releases are even numbered and development branches
> > > are odd numbered. This changed during late develoment of
> > > 2.6, according to my analysis because of the "invention" of
> > > GIT which was itself necessary because of BitKeeper (insert
> > > ooooooooold flame-wars here) and which allowed very dynamic
> > > develoment.
> > [...]
> > I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
> > regression fixing, but I'm not so sure that a 2.6.7 devel branch would
> > solve this. In general the 2.6.x.y -stable kernels seem to be doing
> > the job pretty good.
>
> For my part, I think the 2.6.<odd> did not go as well as the 2.6.<even>,
> beginning with x=16.

you misunderstood the even/odd it was never 2.x.y with y odd/even being 
stable / development, it was the x being even/odd to indicate stable / 
development.

all 2.6.x are stable, all 2.5.x were development.

David Lang