![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread
|
Andrew Morton wrote: > Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote: > >>IMO too confusing. >> > > > 2.6.even: bugfixes only > 2.6.odd: bugfixes and features. > > That doesn't even confuse me! > > >>Developers right now are sitting on big piles, and pushing that back >>even further means every odd release means you are creating a >>2.4.x/2.5.x backport situation every two releases. > > > No, there is no backporting. If you have a bug, fix it in 2.6.12-pre. > There is no need to maintain that bugfix in your 2.6.13-candidate tree. You are missing where the backporting is. If the time between big merges increases, as with this proposal, then the distance between local dev trees and linux-2.6 increases. With that distance, breakages like the 64-bit resource struct stuff become more painful. I like my own "ongoing dev tree, ongoing stable tree" proposal a lot better. But then, I'm biased :) Jeff - 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: 2005-03-22 14:10 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||