> Brian <signal@shreve.net> writes:
>
> > 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. 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.
>
> 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.
We _do_ make our own rules about stability. For example, according to mine,
2.2.7-ac2 is the only 'stable' kernel after 2.0.36, and then not for our
production targets.
I don't much mind if there are bugs in subsystems I don't use, but
crashes/wedges/reboots/data-loss/corruption in subsystems I _do_ use lead me
to brand it unstable. Not unreasonable, I should think.
D
-
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/