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

Adrian Bunk
2004-07-25T13:31:08Z

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 04:57:35PM -0400, Timothy Miller wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> So instead of even minor numbers indicating stability, you have pushed
> two levels down so that higher sub-revision (minorminorminor?) numbers
> indicate increased levels of stability?
>
> Kinda makes sense.
>
> Does that mean that 2.6.21 and 2.6.20.1 are two separate forks of
> 2.6.20, one for development, and the other for stability?
>
> How is this fundamentally different from how it was done before with
> odd/even minor numbers?
>...

Kernel 2.4 continues to be actively supported for several years after
the release of kernel 2.6 .

How long do you assume will kernel 2.6.20 be supported after the release
of kernel 2.6.21?

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