Re: A Humble Suggestion for 2.0/2.1
Matthias Urlichs (smurf@smurf.noris.de)
Thu, 20 Jun 1996 16:02:57 +0100
In linux.dev.kernel, article <Pine.LNX.3.93.960619222905.1523B-100000@b=
rando>,
Kevin M Bealer <kmb203@psu.edu> writes:
> It look to me like the code freeze took a long time. Fifteen or twen=
ty
> releases during code freeze suggests that too many bugs had developed=
for
> too long. Having a code freeze more often would keep the overall cod=
e
> cleaner, I would think.
>=20
We already had a code freeze, around 1.3.40?? However, it didn't take, =
much
like the two aborted code freezes in the 1.1 tree, and for much the sam=
e
reason -- too many new features were under development. If we had done =
the
freeze then, the features we have now in 2.0 (and it's a really impress=
ive
list of features, don't forget that) would have been delayed for a mont=
h of
code freeze and another month of reintegration into the (then) 1.5
development tree. Which means that people who need the new features wou=
ld
have to fight with instable development kernels.
This, of course, also happened with the 1.3 tree, WRT the stuff that we=
nt
into "early" 1.3 versions.
So, it's a tradeoff. On the whole, though, I think the Linux developmen=
t
effort works reasonably well with the schedule (or lack of it) we have =
now.
--=20
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always =
so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russell
--=20
Matthias Urlichs \ noris network GmbH / Xlink-POP N=FCrnberg=
=20
Schleiermacherstra=DFe 12 \ Linux+Internet / EMail: urlichs@nor=
is.de
90491 N=FCrnberg (Germany) \ Consulting+Programming+Networking+etc=
'ing
PGP: 1024/4F578875 1B 89 E2 1C 43 EA 80 44 15 D2 29 CF C6 C7 E0 D=
E
Click <A HREF=3D"http://info.noris.de/~smurf/finger">here</A>. =
42