Re: kernel structures 2.0.29->2.0.30

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Sat, 26 Apr 1997 00:49:38 +0100 (BST)

> modification in a stable release was careful weighted and overcautiously
> studied. This is clearly no longer true and I regret it. It seems Linux
> developers lost the problem of "pure" users (not developers). 2.0.x
> kernels have introduced new stuff and this is not acceptable (the Apache
> break in 2.0.14 was specially catastrophic).

2.0.14 broke for SMP and Apache only. It broke because a fix that was
causing Oopses for people running Apache got fixed. And because the SMP
bug was WEEEIIIIIRD it took till .18 to fix.

> major change. From 2.0 to 2.1 a smaller change and from 2.0.29 to 2.0.30
> just some bug fixes. Otherwise, we are not better than Microsoft which
> uses versioning for marketing.

One problem we have is no version space for an "incremental upgrade".
Solaris for example goes 2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5 and then has the 2.5.1 release
which is 2.5 patched and improved a bit but not a major change. 2.0.30
is the equivalent of that

> more stable and more careful with changes in *stable* versions. Or, since
> Linux is only supported by people who believe in it, not by managers who
> dictate its use, we will lost supporters.

You'll notice vendors don't leap onto new subrevisions already for exactly
this reason. Red Hat 4.0 shipped a fixed 2.0.18 after the big ping bug
rather than a 2.0.25.

Alan