Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:16:13 +0100 | From | "Jesper Juhl" <> | Subject | Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version. |
| |
On 10/11/06, Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote: [...] > > There are bugfixes which are too big for stable or -rc releases, that are > > queued for 2.6.20. "Bugfix only" is a relative statement. Do you include, > > new hardware support, new security api's, performance fixes. It gets to > > be real hard to decide, because these are the changes that often cause > > regressions; often one major bug fix causes two minor bugs. > > That's exactly the point I'm trying to get across; the 2.6 dev model tries to > be two cycles in one, dev and stable, which yields an awkward catch22 > situation. > > The only sane way forward in such a situation is to realize the mistake and > return to the focused dev-only / stable-only model. > > This would probably involve pushing the current 2.6 kernel into 2.8 and > starting 2.9 as a dev-cycle only, once 2.8 has structurally stabilized. >
That was not what I was arguing for in the initial mail at all. I think the 2.6 model works very well in general. All I was pushing for was a single cycle focused mainly on bug fixes once in a while.
-- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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/
| |