Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel

Adrian Bunk
2005-12-03T19:35:38Z

On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 09:31:03AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 14:56 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The current kernel development model is pretty good for people who
> > always want to use or offer their costumers the maximum amount of the
> > latest bugs^Wfeatures without having to resort on additional patches for
> > them.
> >
> > Problems of the current development model from a user's point of view
> > are:
> > - many regressions in every new release
> > - kernel updates often require updates for the kernel-related userspace
> > (e.g. for udev or the pcmcia tools switch)
> >
> > One problem following from this is that people continue to use older
> > kernels with known security holes because the amount of work for kernel
> > upgrades is too high.
>
> What you're suggesting sounds just like going back to the old style of
> development where 2.<even>.x is stable, and 2.<odd>.x is development.
> You might as well just suggest that after 2.6.16, we fork to 2.7.0, and
> 2.6.17+ will be stable increments like we always used to do.
>
> You're just munging the version scheme :)

The 2.6.17+ development model is different from a traditional 2.7
development model in the sense that 2.6.17+ contains regular relatively
stable releases.

But yes, what I suggest is partially a step back in a way that it
doesn't conflict with the current 2.6.17+ development model.

Well, if taking the best from the old style development is improving
things that isn't something bad.

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