H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0005281347520.32755-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
> By author: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > OTOH, maybe we *did* include too much new features in
> > the 2.3 cycle. We may want to try doing a bit less next
> > time.
> >
>
> I think we did; we have fallen into that pit before. It's very easy
> to get seduced by "one more thing"; especially after a previous long
> cycle where things have piled up.
>
> However, code freeze after two months is completely unrealistic
> IMNSHO. The big thing, and I know a lot of people have asked for
> this, is to call a code freeze and sticking to it.
But having a 1-year code freeze is not realistic either. Linus called
"code freeze" last september if I remember correctly.
When in a code-freeze, the new development kernel should be opened up
almost immediately. Wether it's called 2.5.x or ....-ac doesn't really
matter.
Wether Alan wants to maintain another kernel tree is up to him.
Roger.
-- ** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * Common sense is the collection of * ****** prejudices acquired by age eighteen. -- Albert Einstein ********- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:20 EST