Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version.

["Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>]

On 10/11/06, Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
[...]
> > There are bugfixes which are too big for stable or -rc releases, that are
> > queued for 2.6.20. "Bugfix only" is a relative statement. Do you include,
> > new hardware support, new security api's, performance fixes.  It gets to
> > be real hard to decide, because these are the changes that often cause
> > regressions; often one major bug fix causes two minor bugs.
>
> That's exactly the point I'm trying to get across; the 2.6 dev model tries to
> be two cycles in one, dev and stable, which yields an awkward catch22
> situation.
>
> The only sane way forward in such a situation is to realize the mistake and
> return to the focused dev-only / stable-only model.
>
> This would probably involve pushing the current 2.6 kernel into 2.8 and
> starting 2.9 as a dev-cycle only, once 2.8 has structurally stabilized.
>

That was not what I was arguing for in the initial mail at all.
I think the 2.6 model works very well in general. All I was pushing
for was a single cycle focused mainly on bug fixes once in a while.

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html