From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261234AbUGVUTK (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:19:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267198AbUGVUTK (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:19:10 -0400 Received: from hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de ([129.187.202.12]:29651 "HELO hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261234AbUGVUTF (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:19:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:18:58 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Andrew Morton Cc: corbet@lwn.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: New dev model (was [PATCH] delete devfs) Message-ID: <20040722201858.GG19329@fs.tum.de> References: <40FEEEBC.7080104@quark.didntduck.org> <20040721231123.13423.qmail@lwn.net> <20040721235228.GZ14733@fs.tum.de> <20040722025539.5d35c4cb.akpm@osdl.org> <20040722193337.GE19329@fs.tum.de> <20040722160112.177fc07f.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040722160112.177fc07f.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:01:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > my personal opinon is that this new development model isn't a good > > idea from the point of view of users: > > > > There's much worth in having a very stable kernel. Many people use for > > different reasons self-compiled ftp.kernel.org kernels. > > Well. We'll see. 2.6 is becoming stabler, despite the fact that we're > adding features. 4kb stacks were added after 2.6.0 and now 4KSTACKS=y results in Oops'es under some circumstances if using XFS. 2.6 currently still becomes stabler, but every new/changed feature bears the risk of breaking something. > I wouldn't be averse to releasing a 2.6.20.1 which is purely stability > fixes against 2.6.20 if there is demand for it. Anyone who really cares > about stability of kernel.org kernels won't be deploying 2.6.20 within a > few weeks of its release anyway, so by the time they doodle over to > kernel.org they'll find 2.6.20.2 or whatever. Who will maintain the many subtrees of 2.6 this implies? Even after 2.6.20 was already released, you might have to release a 2.6.19.5 with a few additional security fixes since according to your advice users should continue to use 2.6.19 for a few weeks which implies that someone will have to maintain at least the 2.6.19 tree for at least a few weeks after the release of 2.6.20 . 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