![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 14:56 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > The current kernel development model is pretty good for people who > always want to use or offer their costumers the maximum amount of the > latest bugs^Wfeatures without having to resort on additional patches for > them. > > Problems of the current development model from a user's point of view > are: > - many regressions in every new release > - kernel updates often require updates for the kernel-related userspace > (e.g. for udev or the pcmcia tools switch) > > One problem following from this is that people continue to use older > kernels with known security holes because the amount of work for kernel > upgrades is too high. What you're suggesting sounds just like going back to the old style of development where 2.<even>.x is stable, and 2.<odd>.x is development. You might as well just suggest that after 2.6.16, we fork to 2.7.0, and 2.6.17+ will be stable increments like we always used to do. You're just munging the version scheme :) -- Ben Collins <ben.collins@ubuntu.com> Developer Ubuntu Linux - 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: 2005-12-03 19:21 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||