Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261608AbUJ0DLu (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:11:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261611AbUJ0DLu (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:11:50 -0400 Received: from smtp.dei.uc.pt ([193.137.203.228]:29582 "EHLO smtp.dei.uc.pt") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261608AbUJ0DLr (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:11:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:05:15 +0100 (WEST) From: "Marcos D. Marado Torres" To: Ed Tomlinson cc: Massimo Cetra , "'Chuck Ebbert'" <76306.1226@compuserve.com>, "'Bill Davidsen'" , "'William Lee Irwin III'" , "'linux-kernel'" Subject: Re: My thoughts on the "new development model" In-Reply-To: <200410261719.56474.edt@aei.ca> Message-ID: References: <00c201c4bb4c$56d1b8b0$e60a0a0a@guendalin> <200410261719.56474.edt@aei.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-UC-FCTUC-DEI-MailScanner-Information: Please contact helpdesk@dei.uc.pt for more information X-UC-FCTUC-DEI-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: marado@student.dei.uc.pt Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2045 Lines: 46 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Ed Tomlinson wrote: >> 2.4 tree is still the best solution for production. >> 2.6 tree is great for gentoo users who like gcc consuming all CPU >> (maxumum respect to gentoo but I prefer debian) > > The issue is that Linus _has_ changed the development model. What we have > now is more flexable and much more responsive to changes. This does > lead to stable releases that are not quite a stable as some of the previous > stable series... This is why I suggest a fix/security branch. The idea being > that after a month or so of fixes etc it will be a very stable kernel and it will > not have slowed down development. The sole existence of this discussion prooves that there's already the need of a new step. But why trying to re-invent the wheel? Yes, relating to 2.6 we need already a "very stable kernel" and a "not-slowed down development kernel". When it happened in 2.4 2.5 was created. Isn't all this just the indication that we need a 2.6 development like 2.4 is, and we need 2.7 to be created? Mind Booster Noori - -- /* *************************************************************** */ Marcos Daniel Marado Torres AKA Mind Booster Noori http://student.dei.uc.pt/~marado - marado@student.dei.uc.pt () Join the ASCII ribbon campaign against html email, Microsoft /\ attachments and Software patents. They endanger the World. Sign a petition against patents: http://petition.eurolinux.org /* *************************************************************** */ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFBfxBtmNlq8m+oD34RAtIwAKDjVsTaY8v5EB8jfYqGywlziU3WfACfZ6dH XlhH9UPCngBYZ8R1mrHusSs= =PxeH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - 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/