> This is an amazing thread. A dozen posts and no one has indicated whether
> they are talking about updating 2.2 or 2.3. It seems like to many
> developers, even numbered kernels are developmental and odd numbered
> kernels are experimental. There is scant evidence on this list that anyone
> sees a need for a kernel that is stable in anything but name.
2.2
> The new RAID code breaks existing configurations. Such changes are
> sometimes needed. However, they should never be put directly into a stable
> kernel. Deliberately breaking production systems with a kernel upgrade
> _within_ a "stable" kernel series is unconscionable.
Except for many of us (myself included) have been applying the RAID
patches since the 2.2 series began. This is more than just a hassle since
because the RAID isn't directly in the kernel we don't always see RAID
patches for every kernel release. Sometimes we can get away w/ just applying
an old patch, but other times this causes problems.
> Now that companies are beginning to run Linux on production systems, the
> carefree attitude toward "stable" kernels has to change. I'd love to be
> able to recommend Linux to my clients on Wall Street, but there have to be
> stable kernels first. That means nothing changes unless it's a bug fix.
> Everything else (updated drivers, new features, code cleanups) waits for
> the next major release. Otherwise, there is little difference between odd
> and even numbered kernels.
We hardly need to have limitations put on us from anyone. Those who
run production systems should have other systems on which they test things
before actually putting them in place. They should also be watching to see
what others say about particular kernels before using them. They should
also (scary thought) read the change list, and see what changed, and what
they might need to update.
Stephen
-
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/