Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel

[Bill Davidsen]

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
> > I do think the old model was better; by holding down major changes for 
> > six months or so after a new even release came out, people had a 
> > chance to polich the stable release, and developers had time to 
> > recharge their batteries so to speak, and to sit and think about what 
> > they wanted to do, without feeling the pressure to write code and 
> > submit it right away. Knowing that there's no place to send code for 
> > six months is a great aid to generating GOOD code.
>
>
> It never worked that way, which is why the model changed.
>
> Like it or not, developers would only focus on one release.  In the old 
> model, unstable things would get shoved into the stable kernel, because 
> people didn't want to wait six months.  And for the unstable kernel, it 
> would often be so horribly broken that even developers couldn't use it 
> for development (think 2.5.x IDE).

I was actually thinking of Rusty's module code... I do every time I have 
to build an initrd file by hand "Although the syntax is similar to the 
older /etc/modules.conf, there are many features missing."

--
   -bill davidsen (davidsen@xxxxxxx)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/