Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:28:27 -0700 | From | Kevin Fox <> | Subject | Re: New dev model (was [PATCH] delete devfs) |
| |
How is this any different then the old dev model with very short release cycles? (Other then keeping a "2." prefixed forever)
On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 16:01, Andrew Morton wrote: > Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote: > > > > my personal opinon is that this new development model isn't a good > > idea from the point of view of users: > > > > There's much worth in having a very stable kernel. Many people use for > > different reasons self-compiled ftp.kernel.org kernels. > > Well. We'll see. 2.6 is becoming stabler, despite the fact that we're > adding features. > > I wouldn't be averse to releasing a 2.6.20.1 which is purely stability > fixes against 2.6.20 if there is demand for it. Anyone who really cares > about stability of kernel.org kernels won't be deploying 2.6.20 within a > few weeks of its release anyway, so by the time they doodle over to > kernel.org they'll find 2.6.20.2 or whatever. > - > 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/ - 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/
| |