Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:39:37 -0400 | From | Jason Cooper <> | Subject | Re: New dev model (was [PATCH] delete devfs) |
| |
Andrew Morton (akpm@osdl.org) scribbled: > Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote: > > There's much worth in having a very stable kernel. Many people use for > > different reasons self-compiled ftp.kernel.org kernels.
I have to agree with Adrian, the first thing I always do with a new distro is rip out the kernel and drop in a vanilla from kernel.org. I've been biten too many times by distro kernels. :(
> 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.
imho, I feel there are two main concerns with changing the development model:
1.) Need to have readily identifiable stable versions w/o following lkml. 2.) Understanding the changing of version numbers in light of this change of strategy.
Ideas:
wrt (1), I think the -rc? system would be simplest. 2.6.20 is stable, 2.6.20-rc3 is not.
wrt (2), assuming the naming stays the same:
major++ = major overhaul of core system. minor++ = overhaul to drivers (or subset thereof). patch++ = testing patches survived, appear stable. extra++ = next set of testing patches applied.
Sure, this would mean version numbers start to creap up, but nothing is stopping a kernel version 2.11.x (what?! where's my 3.0.1? We were definitely supposed to have a 3.0 around here somewhere... Where's my meds? *frowns*).
tia,
Cooper. - 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/
| |