[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: starting with 2.7
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 06:59:27PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 01:36:21PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > This is the model that we used with the
> > 2.3.x series, where the time between releases was often quite short.
> > That worked fairly well, but we stopped doing it when the introduction
> > of BitKeeper eliminated the developer synch-up problem. But perhaps
> > we've gone too far between 2.6.x releases, and should shorten the time
> > in order to force more testing.
> It is also the model we used until OLS this year - there was a 2.6
> release about once a month prior to OLS. Post OLS, it's now once
> every three months or there abouts, which, IMO is far too long.

I was thinking more about every week or two (ok, two releases in a day
like we used to do in the 2.3 days was probably too freequent :-), but
sure, even going to a once-a-month release cycle would be better than
the current 3 months between 2.6.x releases.

- Ted
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 14:09    [W:0.216 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site