[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRE: RFD: Kernel release numbering

    > You cannot have it both ways. Either the kernel needs
    > testers, or it is "stable". See how these are opposites?

    I think one of the fundamental problems is "either the kernel needs more
    features, or it needs stablization". You cannot have it both ways. With the
    current model, the kernel develops at a faster pace than testers can keep up
    with, and that's why you feel there aren't enough testers.

    Not everyone downloads a kernel every day or even every week. Just once a
    while. If you roll out a kernel, you need to give some time to people to
    test it out. However, with the current model the kernel keeps adding
    features, non-bug fixes, etc, _and completely abandons the previous one and
    moves on_. So what's the point of testing? When I download 2.6.9, 2.6.11
    might have come out. Even if bug reports do not become obosolete, they are
    outpaced by new bugs.

    Agreed we need a balance. The problem is the 2.6 focuses too much on
    development than stablization. The old "stable release maintainer" model was
    completely abandoned. Surely that was not an exciting job, but people need


    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 14:10    [W:0.025 / U:61.584 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site