Messages in this thread | | | From | jlnance@unity ... | Date | Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:35:36 -0500 | Subject | Re: Some thoughts about stable kernel development |
| |
> There is a problem that a development cycle (time between stable > = non-pre/rc versions) is long.
This sentiment is expressed fairly often, and I have never seen it challenged. However, I am not convinced that it is true. I do not believe that people who care about stability want to upgrade to a new kernel with major changes in it every 9 months. It also takes a fairly long time for our "stable" kernels to actually get stable enough that vendors are comfortable shipping them. I think if our develpment cycle gets significantly shorter, you will end up with vendors skipping entire stable series (ie. moving from 2.2 to 2.6 without ever doing 2.4). I think that would create more pain for us than our current release cycle length does.
Thanks,
Jim - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |