[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: RFD: Kernel release numbering
    Linus wrote (back on 4th March):
    :The even/odd situation would have made for a situation that some people
    :seem to be arguing for (more explicit calming-down period), but with the
    :difference that I think the odd ones should definitely have been
    :user-release quality already. But that one was apparently hated by so many
    :people that it's not even worth trying.

    :The fact is, there is no perfect way of doing things, and this discussion
    :has degenerated into nothing but whining. Which is kind of expected, but
    :let's hope that the only non-whining that came out of this (Greg  co's
    :trials with 2.6.x.y) ends up being worthwhile.

    I'm sorry I didn't get to read this earlier. I apologise for stepping in here,
    not being a core developer, however, this is what I tend to think about kernel

    Even/odd at the next level down would confuse p.o.u like me. We kind of
    grasped that 2.4 was okay to run (generally, anyone remember 2.4.12?) but a
    walk with 2.5 was definitely taking your hard drive for a walk. When 2.6 came
    along as the new devel kernel (as I perceived everyone saying) I got confused,
    then decided to wait to see what happened. It ended up looking like I would
    hawe perceived a true 2.6 tree to be - mostly stable, yet a few nice features
    being added. The MAJOR difference for me was that there WASN'T a 2.7 feeding
    nice stuff to the 2.6 tree - it was all going in directly. Nice.

    The new 2.6.x.y has turned out to be an interesting change for me, being
    previously used to 2.x.y. I'm guessing the reason for this is that Greg
    decided to be a little more fine-grained with releases, so as to reduce
    (somewhat) the major jump from 2.6.x to 2.6.x+1 for the developers, who
    internally went through 2.6.x+1-rc[123...], and 2.6.x+1-pre[n].

    Frankly, I wasn't seeing the major jump, and was thinking of it as perhaps a
    few bugs found each time, maybe a couple of fixes, and by the time you'd gone
    from 2.6.4 (for example) to 2.6.12, or maybe even 2.6.19, lots of new features
    were added, and 98% of the bugs shaken out. So much for the view of a simple
    desktop user.

    I'm finding the finer granularity a little confusing, as I'm not sure if the
    patches are cumulative (not the case in the past for patches on a Linus
    kernel) or I just happen to hit a couple of weird patches. Going from
    to .3, I was told I had seemingly applied one of the patches already, and it
    was the same when going from .3 to .4 - not many failures, usually only one or

    I like 2.6. I don't think any of my machines will ever go back to 2.4 (except
    perhaps for my wife's machine, but that's another matter <grin>), I like using

    And next time, I won't wait for 20 days before making a comment. Hopefully.

    /| _,.:*^*:., |\ Cheers from the Viking family, including Pippin, our cat
    | |_/' viking@ `\_| |
    | flying-brick | $FunnyMail : What do you mean, I've lost the plot?
    \ 5.40 : I planted them carrots right here!!
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:11    [W:0.022 / U:0.084 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site