Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:32:19 -0400
From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
Cc: Massimo Cetra <mcetra@navynet.it>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
Message-ID: <200410261233_MC3-1-8D2A-5BA7@compuserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	 charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1322
Lines: 37

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 at 08:03:13 -0700 William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> I'm running 2.6 on a number of machines I rely upon
> heavily as servers etc. on the open net as well as the usual dedicated
> kernel hacking machines. The uptimes of the relied-upon systems are
> measured in months, at times approaching a year.

 "It works for me" doesn't cut it in the OS world.


> More bugs are fixed than are introduced every release by a large margin.

 Irrelevant.


> And not even your beloved 2.4 is immune to regressions.

 We're not talking about regression, i.e. reappearance of old bugs.


> What does the number of patchsets have to do with anything?

 Large changes produce bugs -- that's a fact of life.

 It's not that the changes aren't needed, it's just the the previous 2.6 release
is kind of like a baby abandoned on a doorstep -- nobody has the time to fix
those last few bugs.  Even if someone were to step up to the plate and try to
create a stable 2.6 series, I'd bet the lead developers wouldn't even spend time
working on it.


--Chuck Ebbert  26-Oct-04  12:31:08
-
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/