Marco Colombo <marco@esi.it> said:
[...]
> I'm just proposing to shorten the devel cycle not by simply reducing
> the time between the first releaase of 2.5.0 and the final of 2.6.0,
> which may be a bad thing, but just letting it overlap with the previuos
> cycle of 2.3 - 2.4. Numbers means nothing in this context, but let's see
> an example. Given a devel cycle on 12 months, we have now a stable release
> every year, roughly this way:
> 3 months of wild changes/core rewriting - 3 months of porting the rest
> of the kernel to the new API - 3 months making it stable - RELEASE
> 3 months of fixes - SPAWN of new devel.
Today that is Linus + DaveM + others concentrating on the experimental
release, plus Alan Cox and a few others working on the stable one.
> I'm just proposing to have two overlapped cycles, about 6 months apart:
> just spawn the new devel when you're at the pre-release step. This way
> there's always a place to put development code, with no need to way or
> to develop against stable releases... and there's also less pressure
> on including "new" features on a nearly stable kernel.
OK, give us a copy of Linus and the head hackers, and they take over the
other branch.
> Yes, having two cycles means double work. But also developing against
> 2.2 and then "backporting" to 2.3 is also double work...
It is not double work, the differences are small(ish) today. If wild
development goes on on two branches, crossporting will be very dificult and
they will diverge.
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 15 2000 - 21:00:18 EST