Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 05:59:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 05:59:29 -0500 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:57868 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 05:59:24 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:59:01 -0200 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Mike Fedyk , Stephan von Krawczynski , Dominik Kubla , , Subject: Re: [RFC] 2.5/2.6/2.7 transition [was Re: Linux 2.4.16-pre1] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.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 On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The _real_ solution is to make fewer fundamental changes between > stable kernels, and that's a real solution that I expect to become > more and more realistic as the kernel stabilizes. Agreed, this would make a _lot_ of difference in the time it takes to get a new stable kernel really stable. > But you also have to realize that "fewer fundamental changes" is a > mark of a system that isn't evolving as quickly, and that is reaching > middle age. We are probably not quite there yet ;) Doesn't mean we need to get _all_ our TODO items done in 2.5. I really don't see what's wrong with doing only a few in 2.5 and delaying the rest for 2.7, especially not when both 2.5 and 2.7 happen quickly ;) regards, Rik -- Shortwave goes a long way: irc.starchat.net #swl http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/