Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel

From: Bill Davidsen
Date: Fri Dec 09 2005 - 11:38:02 EST


Jeff Garzik wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:

I do think the old model was better; by holding down major changes for six months or so after a new even release came out, people had a chance to polich the stable release, and developers had time to recharge their batteries so to speak, and to sit and think about what they wanted to do, without feeling the pressure to write code and submit it right away. Knowing that there's no place to send code for six months is a great aid to generating GOOD code.


It never worked that way, which is why the model changed.

Like it or not, developers would only focus on one release. In the old model, unstable things would get shoved into the stable kernel, because people didn't want to wait six months. And for the unstable kernel, it would often be so horribly broken that even developers couldn't use it for development (think 2.5.x IDE).

I was actually thinking of Rusty's module code... I do every time I have to build an initrd file by hand "Although the syntax is similar to the older /etc/modules.conf, there are many features missing."

--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@xxxxxxx)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/