>> Coudln't the "incomplete or experiemental" sections of 2.2.x kernels
>> already be considered Beta? I mean, I think the beta channel already
>> exists in the current versioning system.
>>
>> brian
>>
>
>That is good for identifying which parts of the linux kernel are beta
>( or alpha quality). I am talking about a stamp of approval
>from the kernel developers for the overall kernel. Right
>now there are only 2 labels -- Development and Stable. I am
>taking about refining it a bit more-- development, beta and
>stable.
Once again. There _IS_ a beta. Download the 'pre' kernels.
You can expand the 'pre' to mean 'prerelease beta of a testing
kernel which will be released as stable if there are no major
problems reported in x amount of time'.
>At least with the 2.2 series, I think distribution makers
>(Redhat, Suse, and possibly others) jumped in too early. At
>the risk of sounding bureaucratic, let me suggest a scheme.
>I think we should wait for x days ( a week, 10 days pick
>your choice) before a beta version is declared stable.
You don't follow Linux development very closely then. Kernels
are released in pre's until it is considered stable. Nobody can
FORCE people to test the 'pre' kernels though, and many people
WONT do so. As such they don't get the exposure that stable
kernels do. Due to that, sometimes after a 'pre' kernel has been
out long enough, it get's promoted to stable - as you say, only
to have 50000 times as many people download it than downloaded
the 'pre' beta kernel. Then, due to the larger amount of
testing, new bugs are found, some major. I can't see how it
could get much better, other than setting up some big warehouse
with 1 of every piece of hardware, and forcing Linus to test
every possible kernel compilation combination out on every piece
of hardware.
It isn't possible, or practical.
>Of course, you can argue that users can a set a rule for
>themselves. It just make the life of users a little easier
>if the software itself gives more information about its quality.
Even a buggy kernel, or a 2.1.x kernel with values of X > 85 is
much less buggy than Windows 95 per se. As such, it is very high
quality.
Most major problems are due to weird hardware combinations as I
see it from observing the list. As such, there are not a zillion
test machines running every single kernel release. People can't
afford to run a pre kernel on their 24/7 mission critical
hardware if there is a possibility of breakage. As such, the pre
doesn't get tested on their machine, so the final release that
they download instead, may in fact not work on their hardware
combination.
There is just no way to change this, and I don't see anything
that is wrong with the current way things are done.
-- Mike A. Harris Linux advocate GNU advocate Computer Consultant Open Source advocateTea, Earl Grey, Hot...
- 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/