Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262526AbVCCVJ5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:09:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262595AbVCCVF1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:05:27 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.55]:39063 "EHLO ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262589AbVCCVDA (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:03:00 -0500 Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering From: Steven Rostedt To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jeff Garzik , Greg KH , "David S. Miller" , akpm@osdl.org, LKML In-Reply-To: References: <42265A6F.8030609@pobox.com> <20050302165830.0a74b85c.davem@davemloft.net> <422674A4.9080209@pobox.com> <42268749.4010504@pobox.com> <20050302200214.3e4f0015.davem@davemloft.net> <42268F93.6060504@pobox.com> <4226969E.5020101@pobox.com> <20050302205826.523b9144.davem@davemloft.net> <4226C235.1070609@pobox.com> <20050303080459.GA29235@kroah.com> <4226CA7E.4090905@pobox.com> <422751C1.7030607@pobox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Kihon Technologies Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:02:30 -0500 Message-Id: <1109883750.591.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2452 Lines: 50 A couple of weeks ago I was at LinuxWorldExpo in Boston and was talking to several people about the stability of the 2.6 kernel. Every one I talked to seemed to be nervous about using it. Some did, and some did not and stayed with 2.4. But each one had a different level of faith in which kernel to use. The biggest complaint seems that 2.6 had taken up the MS SP approach to patches. This patch fixes foo bug but with bar feature added, could introduce foo2 bug. So those I talked to really wanted a point where only fixes to real bugs were added with no extra features. Although it looks like Linus has decided to go with the 2.6.x.y scheme, I would like to say that it seems to be the perfect solution to those that I talked to. If Linus wants to get as many people to test the lastest kernel, then this may help in that aspect. Some would choose the 2.6.x.0, with the excitement of the latest (but not so stable) kernel, others may wait till 2.6.x.>5, or some other number, or more likely, after some specified time frame. But this allows different people to start testing the latest kernel when they feel comfortable with it. I would even recommend that the 2.6.x.0 be equivalent to the -rc2 kernel. So if there's some feature that you would like, in 2.6.x, instead of asking for someone to back port it, you could just wait for 2.6.x.y where y is something you are comfortable with. I'm sure people will still ask, but the rule would be to tell them NO. The problem with 2.4 / 2.5 was that there were features in 2.5 that people would want in 2.4 but couldn't wait a year for them. This method would allow that time to be shortened and new features won't take forever to get to a stable release. So kudos to Greg. I hope that everyone supports his efforts and fights against anyone that suggests a non essential bug fix to go into a 2.6.x.y branch. I know lots of people (including myself) that only use the vanilla kernel, and never the kernel that comes from the distributor. So I hope this helps us. Unfortunately, I have a NVidia card, which seldom works with the latest kernels, so I don't get to test as often as I would like, unless I sacrifice 3D graphics. Cheers, -- Steve - 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/