Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:01:04 -0800 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: Too soon for stable release? |
| |
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 06:49:16PM +0100, Tim Cambrant wrote: > I am sorry if this offends someone or if I'm totally on the wrong track > here, but it seems odd to actually call the Beaver On Detox "stable", > considering the amount of misc. problems people have been having the > last week with -test11.
The "stable" series of the kernel is never really stable for a while. A better way to think of it is as "that place where things become stable by refusing to take any new changes except bug fixes".
The news media hasn't picked up on this yet, they seem to think that 2.6.0 is something that will be useful. It won't be, there will be a period of months during which things stablize and then you'll see the distros pick up the release. I don't remember where it was exactly (2.4.18?) but Red Hat waited quite a while before switching to 2.4 from 2.2. This is normal and it works out quite well in practice. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/
| |