On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 01:23:07PM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com> said:
> > Fran?ois Cami wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > That said, I think the week long delay is a *good* idea.
>
> > It's the key to avoiding bad releases.
>
> Yep. Specially when new 2.5.X-preY or 2.5.X are generated at a rate of 2 or
> 3 a week. Look at the history of the kernel. This would only create even
> _more_ pressure to get new patches in, and that is bad.
2.5 doesn't have releases, just snapshots of the development.
>
> When a freeze (or slush) is decreed at the very end, it makes sense.
> Remember that a large part of the success of Linux is due to "Release
> early, release often".
Remember we are talking about 2.4, not 2.5. Having more time between
releases gives more time to test the pre releases. The point it to have
good point (not like 2.4.11, 12, 14, or 15) releases for what is supposed to
be *stable*.
Release 50 -pre kernels for 2.4, but make sure that the next release has had a
chance to stabalize with the new changes.
MF
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 30 2001 - 21:00:31 EST