Randy.Dunlap ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Maybe I don't understand? Is someone expecting distro > quality/stability from kernel.org kernels? > I don't, but maybe I'm one of those minorities.
There are few distributors who can sufficiently QA the kernel they ship. I think only Redhat/Fedora, Novell/Suse and Mandrake/Conectiva currently have *good* testing procedures and good QA. Most other distributions basically ship the vanilla Linus kernel (or Alan kernel) with some basic patches applied. Besides that, a *lot* of admins still prefer to compile their own kernel. I often encounter admins who still don't know about the 2.6 development scheme and blindly compile each shiny new 2.6 kernel released by Linus. So basically what I'm trying to tell is: it could be time to start the 2.7 series to have some room for experimentation. That is what Linus enjoys doing (*) and that is what Linus is good at. Leave the 2.6 kernel to Alan or someone else. However, I think a 2.6.x-mm kernel is still a good idea after 2.7 branches. The -mm kernel could be a collection of backports from the 2.7 kernel, waiting to be included in the 2.6 kernel. The 3.x.y kernel could be the place for very wild experimentation. I'd love to see a kernel which supports a object-relational non-POSIX compatible filesystem, ready for 2010's storage requirements. But that's just me. (*) I've got a magic Linus brain reader device. -- Erik Hensema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
