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

Timothy Miller
2004-07-23T20:30:40Z

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?

It's like the details have been changed to give the illusion that
development will go faster, when in reality, the fundamental approach
hasn't really changed.