On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:21:38 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The reason I put a shorter timeframe on the "all-even" kernel is because I
> don't want developers to be too itchy and sitting on stuff for too long if
> they did something slightly bigger. In theory, the longer the better
> there, but in practice this release numbering is still nothing but a hint
> of the _intent_ of the developers - it's still not a guarantee of "we
> fixed all bugs", and anybody who expects that (and tries to avoid all odd
> release entirely) is just setting himself up for not testing - and thus
> bugs.
>
> Comments?
You still haven't solved the problem of only a small group using the
development kernels. Until a "stable" kernel is released, the majority
of kernel compilers will avoid any development kernel (even on this
mailing list!).
Two suggestions (one or both could be implemented):
How about appointing maintainers for 2.6.N kernels, whose responsibility
is apply stability and security patches for 3 months AND until 2.6.N+3 is
released. So a series of 2.6.11.M kernels will appear until 2.6.14 and
2.6.11 is at least 3 months old. This would given kernel developers
experience with such releases, but without the job being for the life of
the developer.
Also, add a list to the kernel.org web page about which kernels are
considered stable. Listed stable kernels are those who have been
released for at least two weeks.
-Paul
-
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/
