lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: starting with 2.7
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 10:20:40AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> 2.2 before 2.2.20 also had this kind of problem, as did
>> the 2.4 kernel before 2.4.20 or thereabouts.
>> I'm pretty sure 2.6 is actually doing better than the
>> early 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 kernels...

On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 04:29:53PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> My personal impression was that even the 2.6.0-test kernels were much
> better than the 2.4.0-test kernels.
> But 2.6.20 will most likely still have the stability of the early
> 2.6 kernels instead of a greatly increased stability as observed in
> 2.2.20 and 2.4.20 .

This is speculation; there is no reason not to expect the process to
converge to as great of stability or greater stability than the
2.4-style process. I specuate that it will in fact do precisely that.


-- wli
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.281 / U:0.532 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site