Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Dan Maas" <> | Subject | Re: kernel changes | Date | Sat, 29 Sep 2001 03:29:15 -0400 |
| |
> The answer is to treat all linus/ac/aa/... kernels as development > kernels. Don't treat anything as stable until it's been through > a real QA cycle.
I definitely have to second what you guys are saying here... 2.2.x is the stable kernel series, 2.4.x is for caffeine-fueled developers who read the LKML at least once every day...
e.g. I consider it extremely embarrassing that fundamental drivers like aic7xxx, emu10k1, tulip, etc. are breaking regularly in the mainline kernels. I haven't had any trouble with things like this in Windows for several years now... Sure the Windows drivers are probably a few percent slower, but as Nathan Myers once wrote, "It is meaningless to compare the efficiency of a running system against one which might have done some operations faster if it had not crashed."
I think we all owe major thanks to Alan Cox, who does his best to keep the house in order amidst the chaos of kernel development (kudos to Mr. Cox for holding on to Rik's VM design long enough for it to stabilize!). If anything I wish there were a third primary maintainer who would take an even more conservative stance, hanging maybe 2 minor versions behind Linus and -ac, and only picking up changes that have been tested widely. Hmm, the people working on distro kernels are probably just about doing this already... Maybe if they could combine efforts somehow?
Regards, Dan
- 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/
|  |