Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:59:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:59:05 -0500 Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]:7431 "EHLO intrex.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:57:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 09:58:19 -0500 From: jlnance@intrex.net To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] 2.5/2.6/2.7 transition [was Re: Linux 2.4.16-pre1] Message-ID: <20011126095819.B1324@tricia.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:59:01AM -0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:59:01AM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > 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 ;) On the other hand, I dont think you want major number releases of stable kernels happening too quickly either. For people who really care about stability, moving from 2.2 to 2.4 is a big deal. I dont think we really want people to think that they need to do that kind of thing once a year even if we could manage to get our development cycle shortened that much. Thanks, Jim - 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/