Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Jochen Striepe
2005-03-03T16:01:50Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1521 bytes --]

Hi,

On 03 Mar 2005, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
[Why don't the rc's get the testing they need?]
> The first few -rc's was tested by the more conservative users, but then
> things broken on them, and they went "what the hell? Is this a -rc?",
> and got the currently standard "sorry for your issues, but 2.6 -rc's
> *might* be release ready or it might be a accident ready to happen.
> Please check LKML for when Linus says to slow down" reply. And how many
> of your more conservative users will start to read LKML for that?
>
> So now you are basically sitting with a situation where -rc's really do
> not get the coverage they should, and 'stable' 2.6.x versions are really
> not that stable, with lots of excuses being thrown around - its the
> distro's job to make a stable kernel - comes to mind. And you know what
> - your conservative users (which this horkage is all about) actually
> heard that via a friend/whoever that reads LKML. The outcome? - many of
> them probably do not even test 2.6.x kernels anymore, but wait for the
> distro, or try -ac/-ck kernels until they get an issue there (the sound
> issue with fedora that was mentioned comes to mind).

Or they go back to 2.4 kernels. I agree 100% -- this is exactly what I
see when I look around over here.

Many thanks for finding the right words for what I had in mind!

Greetings,

Jochen.
--
Technology is a word that describes something that doesn't work yet.
-- Douglas Adams

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