Re: New dev model (was [PATCH] delete devfs)

Adrian Bunk
2004-07-22T20:19:10Z

On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 04:01:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> 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