> > Likewise with kernel releases - fewer, larger releases work fine and
> > mean less effort for developers, unless something breaks, in which
> > case there is a lot to go through to locate the problem, and people
> > who can't boot the broken kernel have to wait longer to test other
> > things that were newly merged in that release.
> This was exactly what I was getting at. I suspect that there are a good
> number of people that try to boot a 2.5 kernel for testing, run into
> immediate problems, and shelve the idea of 2.5 testing for a couple of
> months because of an immediate appearance that 2.5 is too unstable to
> test. I've seen frequent griping that not enough testing happens, the
> idea is to get it to a point where more people can test it _without_
> adding a huge delay or making a huge gap between releases.
I can see what you mean, but realistically, I don't see how it's
practical.
You can always use 2.5.X-BK1 to get the fixes that we would probably
have been in 2.5.X if Linus had done more extensive testing on it
before releasing it.
John.
-
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 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:00:49 EST