lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: RFD: Kernel release numbering
        Hi,

    On 03 Mar 2005, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
    [Why don't the rc's get the testing they need?]
    > The first few -rc's was tested by the more conservative users, but then
    > things broken on them, and they went "what the hell? Is this a -rc?",
    > and got the currently standard "sorry for your issues, but 2.6 -rc's
    > *might* be release ready or it might be a accident ready to happen.
    > Please check LKML for when Linus says to slow down" reply. And how many
    > of your more conservative users will start to read LKML for that?
    >
    > So now you are basically sitting with a situation where -rc's really do
    > not get the coverage they should, and 'stable' 2.6.x versions are really
    > not that stable, with lots of excuses being thrown around - its the
    > distro's job to make a stable kernel - comes to mind. And you know what
    > - your conservative users (which this horkage is all about) actually
    > heard that via a friend/whoever that reads LKML. The outcome? - many of
    > them probably do not even test 2.6.x kernels anymore, but wait for the
    > distro, or try -ac/-ck kernels until they get an issue there (the sound
    > issue with fedora that was mentioned comes to mind).

    Or they go back to 2.4 kernels. I agree 100% -- this is exactly what I
    see when I look around over here.

    Many thanks for finding the right words for what I had in mind!


    Greetings,

    Jochen.
    --
    Technology is a word that describes something that doesn't work yet.
    -- Douglas Adams
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [W:4.396 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site