From: jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:35:36 -0500
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Some thoughts about stable kernel development
Message-ID: <20031110133536.GA1780@ncsu.edu>
References: <m3u15de669.fsf@defiant.pm.waw.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m3u15de669.fsf@defiant.pm.waw.pl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1006
Lines: 21

> There is a problem that a development cycle (time between stable
> = non-pre/rc versions) is long.

This sentiment is expressed fairly often, and I have never seen it challenged.
However, I am not convinced that it is true.  I do not believe that people
who care about stability want to upgrade to a new kernel with major changes
in it every 9 months.  It also takes a fairly long time for our "stable"
kernels to actually get stable enough that vendors are comfortable shipping
them.  I think if our develpment cycle gets significantly shorter, you will
end up with vendors skipping entire stable series (ie. moving from 2.2 to 2.6
without ever doing 2.4).  I think that would create more pain for us than our
current release cycle length does.

Thanks,

Jim
-
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/