On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I suggested that 2.5 be opened when 2.4 came out, so I like the idea of
> 2.7 starting when 2.6 is released. I think developers will maintain the
> 2.6 work out of pride and desire to have a platform for the "next big
> thing." And their code can always be placed on hold for 2.7 until they
> clarify their thinking on 2.6, if that's really needed.
>
> Most of the developers take pride in what they did in the recent past and
> would certainly not be a problem if a fix were needed. And if there is a
> reasonable -rc process there shouldn't be any major bugs of the "start
> over" variety.
This is IMHO a very bad idea:
- A stable base to start new development upon is a very good thing
(and I don't believe in the stability of 2.6.0).
- Something I'd call the "Debian syndrome" will appear:
There are only very few developers who run Debian stable because even
during the release cycle there's always an unstable tree. One of the
results is that many of the Debian developers aren't that much
focussed on working on the next stable release (the current stable
release of Debian is nearly two years old and doesn't support kernel
2.4...).
If 2.7 doesn't start before 2.6 is _really_ stable everyone who wants
to have a new development tree is more interested in making 2.6 a really
good kernel instead of focussing immediately on 2.7 .
Just my 0.02 (Euro-)cent
Adrian
--You only think this is a free country. Like the US the UK spends a lot of time explaining its a free country because its a police state. Alan Cox
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 07 2002 - 22:00:08 EST