Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:47:30 -0700
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: John Richard Moser <nigelenki@comcast.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL:  New NEW development model
Message-ID: <20041026174730.GL17038@holomorphy.com>
References: <417E8422.3020009@comcast.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <417E8422.3020009@comcast.net>
Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1246
Lines: 24

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 01:06:42PM -0400, John Richard Moser wrote:
> In lieu of the recent unpleasantness[1] about the new development model,
> and of some unexpected nastiness[2] as well, I propose that a very
> slight modification be made to the current development model.  This
> would merge the previous and new development models (as far as my
> understanding is on them) and create a solution for all.
> [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/10/22/497
> [2] http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/10/26/155
> Previously, there were "Stable" and "Development" branches.  The
> "Stable" branches, such as 2.2 and 2.4, would stagnate, and rarely have
> backported features.  The "Development" branches such as 2.3 and 2.5
> would be hammered and mixed with patches, then cleaned up until they
> were fairly stable.  Then they'd be hammered with more patches, then
> cleaned up, then frozen, cleaned up until "stable" and then released.

This is not useful to distinguish your "suggestion" from the status quo.


-- wli
-
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/