Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

Marcos D. Marado Torres
2004-10-27T03:11:50Z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Ed Tomlinson wrote:

>> 2.4 tree is still the best solution for production.
>> 2.6 tree is great for gentoo users who like gcc consuming all CPU
>> (maxumum respect to gentoo but I prefer debian)
>
> The issue is that Linus _has_ changed the development model. What we have
> now is more flexable and much more responsive to changes. This does
> lead to stable releases that are not quite a stable as some of the previous
> stable series... This is why I suggest a fix/security branch. The idea being
> that after a month or so of fixes etc it will be a very stable kernel and it will
> not have slowed down development.

The sole existence of this discussion prooves that there's already the need of
a new step. But why trying to re-invent the wheel? Yes, relating to 2.6 we need
already a "very stable kernel" and a "not-slowed down development kernel". When
it happened in 2.4 2.5 was created. Isn't all this just the indication that we
need a 2.6 development like 2.4 is, and we need 2.7 to be created?

Mind Booster Noori

- --
/* *************************************************************** */
Marcos Daniel Marado Torres AKA Mind Booster Noori
http://student.dei.uc.pt/~marado - marado@student.dei.uc.pt
() Join the ASCII ribbon campaign against html email, Microsoft
/\ attachments and Software patents. They endanger the World.
Sign a petition against patents: http://petition.eurolinux.org
/* *************************************************************** */
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76

iD8DBQFBfxBtmNlq8m+oD34RAtIwAKDjVsTaY8v5EB8jfYqGywlziU3WfACfZ6dH
XlhH9UPCngBYZ8R1mrHusSs=
=PxeH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----