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

Martin Schlemmer
2004-07-22T20:59:24Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 951 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 01:01, 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.
>
> 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.

I wont recommend this, as it screws with some (most?) things trying
to detect kernel version running from uname =)

--
Martin Schlemmer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]