Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262825AbVCDMGY (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2005 07:06:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262829AbVCDLyh (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2005 06:54:37 -0500 Received: from mail.dif.dk ([193.138.115.101]:34238 "EHLO mail.dif.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262907AbVCDLbK (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2005 06:31:10 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:32:07 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Juhl To: "Randy.Dunlap" Cc: Dave Jones , Linus Torvalds , Jeff Garzik , Russell King , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering In-Reply-To: <42268037.3040300@osdl.org> Message-ID: References: <20050302230634.A29815@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <42265023.20804@pobox.com> <20050303002733.GH10124@redhat.com> <42268037.3040300@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2136 Lines: 45 On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > Maybe I don't understand? Is someone expecting distro > quality/stability from kernel.org kernels? > I don't, but maybe I'm one of those minorities. > I certainly do, and I think many others do as well. My assumptions/expectations on vanilla kernels has changed a bit over time, and I don't expect as much from them these days as I once did. I used to expect/assume (and this was back when I had never touched a single line of kernel code nor read a single post on lkml), that 1) the vanilla kernel was the ones with all the latest bugfixes and features 2) the latest stable vanilla kernel had gone through extensive testing (manual and automated) to make sure there were no regressions compared to the previous release 3) I could always go from .X to .X+1 without any features having disappeared 4) that a new vanilla kernel would never be released if there were still known bugs in it (even if those bugs were not regressions). I've become wiser since then, and I'm more aware of the level of testing actually done, so I expect to be hit by bugs/regressions in vanilla kernels once in a while. But I still expect a very high degree of stability/quality from stable series vanilla kernels in general.. I run vanilla kernels on all my boxes, workstations and servers, since I don't really trust vendor kernels. I don't want to start relying on features only available in a single vendors patched kernel so that I will have trouble if I switch vendor (or want to get some new feature that's in vanilla but has not entered the vendors kernel yet). I've also had bad experiences in the past with patched vendor kernels being more unstable on my boxes than the vanilla kernels.. and then there's the testing issue, if everyone ran vendor kernels then who'd be testing vanilla? -- Jesper Juhl - 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/