Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: stable? quality assurance? | Date | Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:38:28 +0200 |
| |
On Sunday, July 11, 2010, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 04:51:42PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > I hope that someone answers who actually can take some critique. From the > > current replies I perceive a lack of that ability. > > well, I'll try to do then :-) > > There were some threads in the past about kernel releases quality, > where Linus explained why it could not be completely black or white. > > Among the things he explained, I remember that one of primary concern > was the inability to slow down development. I mean, if he waits 2 more > weeks for things to stabilize, then there will be two more weeks of > crap^H^H^H^Hdevelopment merged in next merge window, so in fact this > will just shift dates and not quality. ... > It's not really advisable to call dot-0 releases "unstable" because > it will only result in shifting the adoption point between the user > classes above.
IMnshO it's not exactly fair to call them "stable" either. I tend to call them "major releases" which basically reflects what they are - events in the development process that each start a new merge window. Nothing more, either way.
Rafael
| |