Subject: Re: Too soon for stable release?
From: Stan Bubrouski <stan@ccs.neu.edu>
To: arjanv@redhat.com
Cc: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>,
       Larry McVoy <lm@work.bitmover.com>, Tim Cambrant <tim@cambrant.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1070127768.5228.1.camel@laptop.fenrus.com>
References: <20031129174916.GA4592@cambrant.com>
	 <20031129170104.GA15333@work.bitmover.com>
	 <20031129171111.A32154@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
	 <1070127768.5228.1.camel@laptop.fenrus.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-4T8R+F/k+KLGZoKffpNF"
Message-Id: <1070137345.19063.7.camel@duergar>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:22:25 -0500
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org


--=-4T8R+F/k+KLGZoKffpNF
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 12:42, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 18:11, Russell King wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 09:01:04AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > The news media hasn't picked up on this yet, they seem to think that
> > > 2.6.0 is something that will be useful.  It won't be, there will be a
> > > period of months during which things stablize and then you'll see the
> > > distros pick up the release.  I don't remember where it was exactly
> > > (2.4.18?) but Red Hat waited quite a while before switching to 2.4
> > > from 2.2.  This is normal and it works out quite well in practice.
> >=20
> > Red Hat did a 2.4.2 release which was 2.4.2 + a lot of stability change=
s.
>=20
> which was basically a 2.4.4-pre=20
>=20
> > IIRC, RH7.2 was based on 2.4.7,
>=20
> 2.4.7 lived for half a day but the VM of 2.4.7 was so bad we had to go
> to 2.4.9 immediately..

I remember trying stock 2.4.7...it was the first 2.4.x kernel I tried
and I wasn't all that impressed (and i had a plethora of problems).  I
didn't like 2.4.9 much either to be honest, but it was a lot better than
earlier 2.4.x releases.  2.4.x is where I learned exactly what Larry
stated earlier in the thread about stable kernels taking a while to
actually stabilize.  But when they do, the result is quite worth it.=20
And for the record, I'm finding 2.6-test kernels more stable than early
2.4.x release kernels, so I think you guys have a come a long way and
done an awesome job.  I think 2.6 is going to be a kernel that blows
away people who whined about 2.4s desktop performance.

Kudos guys for a job well done,

Stan

--=-4T8R+F/k+KLGZoKffpNF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/yQABQHy9+2ztQiARAnFAAJ9Feyq1lrP70zaToXVyWNX1hLX3HQCfdo/+
SuWv8ptAemlXxx9IjWcE5K0=
=lxtD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-4T8R+F/k+KLGZoKffpNF--

-
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/