From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:39:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:39:40 -0400 Received: from sbc2.ieshost.com ([64.95.200.13]:43526 "HELO sbc2.ieshost.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:39:39 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: steve To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: v2.6 vs v3.0 Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:49:10 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.1 References: <20020929153817.GC1014@suse.de> <20020929221628.E15924@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20020929221628.E15924@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200209291749.10312.steve@szmidt.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org We did catch flak on stability issues on 2.4 for whatever the reasons. The way I see it we should not move to 3.0 until it's been running stable under at least 2.6. The less technical the person the more valuable perception becomes. By only moving to 3.0 when 2.x is seen as totally stable, more new (corporate) people will consider it as the foundation for their infrastructure. Look at the views of 2.2... Besides, stability must be more important than features! -- Steve Szmidt ______________________________________________________