[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: starting with 2.7
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:36:21 -0500, Theodore Ts'o <> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 12:18:36PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > I have to say that with a few minor exceptions the introduction of new
> > features hasn't created long term (more than a few days) of problems. And
> > we have had that in previous stable versions as well. New features
> > themselves may not be totally stable, but in most cases they don't break
> > existing features, or are fixed in bk1 or bk2. What worries me is removing
> > features deliberately, and I won't beat that dead horse again, I've said
> > my piece.
> Indeed. Part of the problem is that we don't get that much testing
> with the rc* releases, so there are a lot of problems that don't get
> noticed until after 2.6.x ships. This has been true for both 2.6.9
> and 2.6.10. My personal practice is to never run with 2.6.x release,
> but wait for 2.6.x plus one or 2 days (i.e. bk1 or bk2). The problems
> with this approach are that (1) out-of-tree patches against official
> versions of the kernel (i.e., things like the mppc/mppe patch) don't
> necessarly apply cleanly, and (2) other more destablizing patches get
> folded in right after 2.6.x ships, so there is a chance bk1 or bk2 may
> not be stable.

What's wrong in keeping the release management as is now plus
introducing a 2.6.X.Y series of kernels ?

In short:

Paolo Ciarrocchi
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:0.230 / U:7.172 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site