[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: New dev model (was [PATCH] delete devfs)
    Andrew Morton ( scribbled:
    > Adrian Bunk <> wrote:
    > > There's much worth in having a very stable kernel. Many people use for
    > > different reasons self-compiled 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
    I've been biten too many times by distro kernels. :(

    > I wouldn't be averse to releasing a which is purely stability
    > fixes against 2.6.20 if there is demand for it. Anyone who really cares
    > about stability of kernels won't be deploying 2.6.20 within a
    > few weeks of its release anyway, so by the time they doodle over to
    > they'll find or whatever.

    imho, I feel there are two main concerns with changing the development

    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.


    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*).


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [W:3.068 / U:0.092 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site