Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:48:36 -0500 | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel |
| |
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).
I was actually thinking of Rusty's module code... I do every time I have to build an initrd file by hand "Although the syntax is similar to the older /etc/modules.conf, there are many features missing."
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me
- 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/
| |