Re: starting with 2.7

[Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:36:21 -0500, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 12:18:36PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > I have to say that with a few minor exceptions the introduction of new
> > features hasn't created long term (more than a few days) of problems. And
> > we have had that in previous stable versions as well. New features
> > themselves may not be totally stable, but in most cases they don't break
> > existing features, or are fixed in bk1 or bk2. What worries me is removing
> > features deliberately, and I won't beat that dead horse again, I've said
> > my piece.
> 
> Indeed.  Part of the problem is that we don't get that much testing
> with the rc* releases, so there are a lot of problems that don't get
> noticed until after 2.6.x ships.  This has been true for both 2.6.9
> and 2.6.10.  My personal practice is to never run with 2.6.x release,
> but wait for 2.6.x plus one or 2 days (i.e. bk1 or bk2).  The problems
> with this approach are that (1) out-of-tree patches against official
> versions of the kernel (i.e., things like the mppc/mppe patch) don't
> necessarly apply cleanly, and (2) other more destablizing patches get
> folded in right after 2.6.x ships, so there is a chance bk1 or bk2 may
> not be stable.

What's wrong in keeping the release management as is now plus
introducing a 2.6.X.Y series of kernels ?

In short:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=109882220123966&w=2

Best,
Paolo Ciarrocchi