lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: The naming wars continue...
    On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:

    >
    >
    > On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Dave Airlie wrote:
    > >
    > > There has been a fair bit of bike shedding going on... so I think we
    > > should use some sort of timber and paint it red...
    >
    > Ok, I nominate this for the strangest entry in the discussion so far.
    >
    Heh, yeah, glad I'm not the only one incapable of making sense of that. :)

    Anyway, I've been reading this thread and just want to add my own small
    comments to it :

    Personally I was a bit sceptical of the "new development model" at first,
    but as 2.6.x has progressed I've come to like it very much.
    I'm using 2.6 on a number of boxes, servers, workstations at work and my
    personal machine at work, and my impression is that it's the fastest
    kernel we've had so far, and it's stable (at least I've not had any major
    issues). So to me it seems to be working just fine.

    Some people have been asking for a sepperate tree for all the experimental
    and unstable stuff, but as I see it that role is fulfilled by Andrews -mm
    tree.
    Things go into -mm, then get a bit (or a lot in some cases) workout and
    then slowly migrate into the mainline (Linus) tree as they settle down and
    are proven to be stable. This is good since it keeps the stable kernel
    up-to-date feature wise, and stuff has a place to get fixed and
    stabilized before it moves to mainline, so mainline 2.6 is not a minefield
    of unstable changes (and I think Andrew is doing a very good job at
    this), but it's not a hugely out-of-date thing as it used to be with a
    sepperate 2.<odd number>.x development tree.

    The people asking for a very stable 2.6.x.y.z.whatever tree are forgetting
    a few things in my oppinion;
    First they seem to forget that point releases actually serve the role of
    "new and improved stable kernel", so 2.6.x is the new "maintainance
    release" of the 2.6.x-1 kernel.
    Also they forget that there's a period of -rc releases before a point
    release where stability and incompatibility problems can be dealt with.
    They also forget that there's nothing stopping them from forking off 2.6.x
    at any point in time and maintaining their own "ultra stable" kernel based
    on that release (hopefully they would still merge their fixes into
    whatever is the current Linus kernel).

    I'm starting to ramble, all I really want to say is that I think the
    current model works well - changes get testing in -mm before hitting
    mainline, and mainline is not lacking behind in fixes and features as
    badly as we've seen earlier with 2.4.x vs 2.5.x, 2.3.x vs 2.2.x and
    previous development branches. And I think Andrew, Linus and the other
    main kernel people are doing a very good job with the kernel atm.

    --
    Jesper Juhl

    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:4.190 / U:0.184 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site