Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:13:02 +0100 (MET) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: Development tree, PLEASE? |
| |
>> Ok, so you agree that there was an ample warning that devfs is going >> away... Now, what would be different if 2.8.0 released tomorrow >> without devfs and your vendor would require you to build new Debian >> installer and kernel? > > Because that would be expected. That constitutes a major release, and should > theoretically have had a development tree corresponding before it.
So let's rename 2.6.16 to 2.7.0, plus:
- (implicitly with the *rename*) stop the 2.6.x series
- never use 2.<even>.x again (some people still don't seem to get that <even> does not mean "stable" in the 2.4 sense) - or start 3.x with an overall new counting scheme
- follow the current development model as usual
> I really understand atleast some of the reasons from the kernel development > standpoint, and can see many really good reasons for running a development tree > like this, and as a method of development I like and agree with it. > However...for the general consumption there still needs to be some sort of > stable target that can be used that's 'blessed' with that mark, and will get > atleast some attention by developers for security updates and (mostly major) > bugfixes, and that people can contribute these sorts of things to, probably > with the proviso that they also contribute it to the mainline dev kernel maybe > IE if you're going to add new supported device to 'stable' 2.6.16.x then you've > got to add it to whatever the current 'dev' line is say 2.6.22 or whatever. > The placing of the .'s is just symbolic. It could be 2.6.x and 2.7.x just as > in the past or it could be 3.0.0.x and 3.0.0+n
Jan Engelhardt -- - 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/
| |