Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:18:58 +0200 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: New dev model (was [PATCH] delete devfs) |
| |
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:01:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote: > > > > my personal opinon is that this new development model isn't a good > > idea from the point of view of users: > > > > There's much worth in having a very stable kernel. Many people use for > > different reasons self-compiled ftp.kernel.org kernels. > > Well. We'll see. 2.6 is becoming stabler, despite the fact that we're > adding features.
4kb stacks were added after 2.6.0 and now 4KSTACKS=y results in Oops'es under some circumstances if using XFS.
2.6 currently still becomes stabler, but every new/changed feature bears the risk of breaking something.
> I wouldn't be averse to releasing a 2.6.20.1 which is purely stability > fixes against 2.6.20 if there is demand for it. Anyone who really cares > about stability of kernel.org kernels won't be deploying 2.6.20 within a > few weeks of its release anyway, so by the time they doodle over to > kernel.org they'll find 2.6.20.2 or whatever.
Who will maintain the many subtrees of 2.6 this implies?
Even after 2.6.20 was already released, you might have to release a 2.6.19.5 with a few additional security fixes since according to your advice users should continue to use 2.6.19 for a few weeks which implies that someone will have to maintain at least the 2.6.19 tree for at least a few weeks after the release of 2.6.20 .
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- 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/
| |