[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: stable? quality assurance?
    Ted Ts'o wrote:
    > It is possible to do other types of release strategies, but look at
    > Debian Obsolete^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Stable if you want to see what happens
    > if you insist on waiting until all release blockers are fixed

    I don't know if Ted intended to be snide, but that is how he sounded.
    And yet, his comment was a fair reflection of how core developers seem
    to feel about stability, namely that a stable kernel is obsolete and
    therefore not particularly desirable. (I use the word "stable" in it's
    common English meaning, not the almost inexplicable Tux variation.)

    I think the truth is that linux kernels are only ever stable as released
    by distributions, and then only the more conservative of them. What
    comes direct from, I mean those called "latest stable", are
    an exercise in dissembling. It's stable because someone calls it
    stable, even though it crashes and has regressions? That's not stable,
    that's just misleading.

    Stable kernels *could* be stable. Debian succeeds. If it takes them a
    long time, that is only because the core developers fail to release
    reasonable quality kernels. Don't sneer at them because they do the
    right thing; do the right thing yourself so that they can produce more
    timely updates.

    I don't expect fair consideration of these comments; why change when
    shooting the messenger is so much more satisfying?

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-07-12 08:53    [W:0.020 / U:2.436 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site