From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263962AbUGYNbI (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:31:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263971AbUGYNbI (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:31:08 -0400 Received: from hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de ([129.187.202.12]:56564 "HELO hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S263962AbUGYNbD (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:31:03 -0400 Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 15:30:57 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Timothy Miller Cc: Andrew Morton , corbet@lwn.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: New dev model (was [PATCH] delete devfs) Message-ID: <20040725133057.GY19329@fs.tum.de> References: <40FEEEBC.7080104@quark.didntduck.org> <20040721231123.13423.qmail@lwn.net> <20040721235228.GZ14733@fs.tum.de> <20040722025539.5d35c4cb.akpm@osdl.org> <20040722193337.GE19329@fs.tum.de> <20040722160112.177fc07f.akpm@osdl.org> <41017BBF.6020106@techsource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41017BBF.6020106@techsource.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:57:35PM -0400, Timothy Miller wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > >Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > >>my personal opinon is that this new development model isn't a good > >>idea from the point of view of users: > >> > >>There's much worth in having a very stable kernel. Many people use for > >>different reasons self-compiled ftp.kernel.org kernels. > > > > > >Well. We'll see. 2.6 is becoming stabler, despite the fact that we're > >adding features. > > > >I wouldn't be averse to releasing a 2.6.20.1 which is purely stability > >fixes against 2.6.20 if there is demand for it. Anyone who really cares > >about stability of kernel.org kernels won't be deploying 2.6.20 within a > >few weeks of its release anyway, so by the time they doodle over to > >kernel.org they'll find 2.6.20.2 or whatever. > > > So instead of even minor numbers indicating stability, you have pushed > two levels down so that higher sub-revision (minorminorminor?) numbers > indicate increased levels of stability? > > Kinda makes sense. > > Does that mean that 2.6.21 and 2.6.20.1 are two separate forks of > 2.6.20, one for development, and the other for stability? > > How is this fundamentally different from how it was done before with > odd/even minor numbers? >... Kernel 2.4 continues to be actively supported for several years after the release of kernel 2.6 . How long do you assume will kernel 2.6.20 be supported after the release of kernel 2.6.21? cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed