[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Some thoughts about stable kernel development
> There is a problem that a development cycle (time between stable
> = non-pre/rc versions) is long.

This sentiment is expressed fairly often, and I have never seen it challenged.
However, I am not convinced that it is true. I do not believe that people
who care about stability want to upgrade to a new kernel with major changes
in it every 9 months. It also takes a fairly long time for our "stable"
kernels to actually get stable enough that vendors are comfortable shipping
them. I think if our develpment cycle gets significantly shorter, you will
end up with vendors skipping entire stable series (ie. moving from 2.2 to 2.6
without ever doing 2.4). I think that would create more pain for us than our
current release cycle length does.


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 13:58    [W:0.158 / U:3.176 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site