On Thu, 25 May 2000, Arne Thomassen wrote:
>Wasn't it bad enough to see 2.3.99pre9-pre5? Now we'll get
>2.4.0-test2-pre1-pre4! :-) How about the idea (someone mentioned) to
>release a 2.3.99 and then open a 2.3.100 tree? "2.4.0-test1" may look like
>a marketing gag, and reading lkml makes me believe 2.4.0-final is still
>some (a few) months away.
How about just releasing f***ing patches and stop playing all these
Microsoft-like numbering games? This is simply 2.3.51 or 2.3.52 by my
count. I really wish someone would beat some release management skills
into Linus, Alan, et. al. (I'd have to admit even M$ does a better job
and they're nuts.)
[I deal with configuration and build management a great deal. These sorts
of games just pisses me off. Just go look at the patch publication times.
2.3 has been in-progress for over a year and I don't see a whole lot of
innovation over that year. What I do see is a "code freeze" (8 months ago?)
followed within days by massive changes to the network driver code breaking
_every_ network driver; inclusion of the ia64 arch code despite not one
physically available system for using it; inclusion of devfs with a default
of mounting over /dev at kernel startup; /var/shm... If one continually
dicks with the tree, then nothing will ever reach a point where it can be
labeled as "tested and stable" or ever approach "bug free".]
We've gone back to 0.99pl15j2??
--Ricky
-
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 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:15 EST