Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Dec 2005 12:23:29 +0100 | From | Matthias Andree <> | Subject | Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel |
| |
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote: > >I do think the old model was better; by holding down major changes for > >six months or so after a new even release came out, people had a chance > >to polich the stable release, and developers had time to recharge their > >batteries so to speak, and to sit and think about what they wanted to > >do, without feeling the pressure to write code and submit it right away. > >Knowing that there's no place to send code for six months is a great aid > >to generating GOOD code. > > It never worked that way, which is why the model changed. > > Like it or not, developers would only focus on one release. In the old > model, unstable things would get shoved into the stable kernel, because > people didn't want to wait six months. And for the unstable kernel, it > would often be so horribly broken that even developers couldn't use it > for development (think 2.5.x IDE).
So why haven't the broken patches (yes, TCQ and all that, too) been backed out at the time?
-- Matthias Andree - 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/
| |