Re: Kernel release numbering

Jochen Striepe
2005-03-03T13:53:47Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1796 bytes --]

Hi,

On 03 Mar 2005, Massimo Cetra wrote:
> So, why moving from 2.6.14 to 2.6.15 when, in 2/4 weeks, i'll have a more
> stable 2.6.16 ?
> Will users help testing an odd release to have a good even release ? Or will
> they consider an even release as important as a -RC release ?

From my experience this won't work (at least it won't work as inten-
ded). I see a tendency of people going away from Linux-2.6, going back
to Linux-2.4, or even going to one of the free BSD's. They go away
because they have the feeling they cannot rely any longer on the stabi-
lity of the 2.6 kernel branch (there are other issues, but this one is
common with most people I talked).

What you really need to avoid this (as far as I can see) is a stable
Kernel branch that does not give you a huge surprise every time you do
a kernel upgrade. Some mediocre statement like "this one might be quite
ok" is not enough -- you need to declare that 2.6.EVEN is *stable*, that
it is ready for production use. When people give it a test, fix the bugs
they find, and release anew without adding any other "improvements". This
way the user gets the least surprises when doing the next update -- and
that is what gets you more users on 2.6: the users will feel they can
*rely* on the stable releases.

At least that's how it looks here. And yes, I *know* it's harder to do
development when you're stuck with maintaining a stable branch. It's
your choice.

Greetings,

Jochen.
--
I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too
young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or
15 years from now, she will come to me and say "Daddy, where were you when
they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?" -Mike Godwin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 481 bytes --]