Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Jan 2005 21:30:33 +0100 | From | Willy Tarreau <> | Subject | Re: starting with 2.7 |
| |
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:57:25AM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 05:53:01PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > My opinion is to fork 2.7 pretty soon and to allow into 2.6 only the > > amount of changes that were allowed into 2.4 after 2.5 forked. > > Looking at 2.4, this seems to be a promising model. > > This must be considered relative to the size of the source code. > Just because they're more changes than you can personally track does > not mean they're large numbers of changes relative to the source's size. > > Users' timidity in these regards should be taken as little more than > a sign that the scale of the kernel's source is increasing, which is a > good thing, as the kernel may then benefit from economies of scale. > > The kernel's scale has long since increased beyond the point where an > individual can effectively track its changes in realtime, and small > matters of degree such as are being moaned about now are insubstantial. > Similarly, counts of bugs and regressions should probably also be > considered relative to the size of the kernel source.
William, I strongly agree with you regarding this (fortunately, it seems to happen sometimes :-))
Speaking for myself, I read and try to understand *all* the changelog of 2.4 pre releases, and even often take a look at linux.bkbits.net to see if some things have changed, that I could grab before waiting for a release, but I almost never read 2.6 changelog (except the first hundreds of lines that Linus announces with a final release), because it's far too much. I don't even know how some people still keep in touch with this amount of changes.
Cheers, Willy
- 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/
| |