[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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.

    On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 09:01:04AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
    > 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.

    ISTR something about 2.4.9 lasting far, far, far, far, far, far longer
    than it should have... and it's not dead yet!!!

    2.6 is likely to buck this trend anyway.

    -- wli
    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 13:59    [W:0.021 / U:2.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site