![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andreas Mohr wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 11:40:27PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > Let me make one very clear statement first: -stabel is a GREAT think > > and it is working VERY well. > > That being said, many of the fixes I see going into -stable are > > regression fixes. Maybe not the majority, but still, regression fixes > > going into -stable tells me that the kernel should have seen more > > testing/bugfixing before being declared a stable release. > > Nice theory, but of course I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't work Agreed. > (as has been said numerous time before by other people). > > You cannot do endless testing/bugfixing, it's a psychological issue. Agreed. > If you do that, then you end up with -preXX (or worse, -preXXX) > version numbers, which would cause too many people to wait and wait > and wait with upgrading until "that next stable" kernel version > finally becomes available. > IOW, your tester base erodes, awfully, and development progress stalls. IMHO, the psycho-problem is that you cannot intertwine development and stable in the same cycle. In that respect, the 2.6 development cycle is a real flop, as it does not allow for focus. And focus is needed to achieve stability. Think catch22... Thanks! -- Al - 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: 2006-11-09 04:57 [W:2.294 / U:0.040 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||