From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261398AbVACMN3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 07:13:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261431AbVACMN3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 07:13:29 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.55]:63720 "EHLO ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261398AbVACMNY (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 07:13:24 -0500 Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 From: Steven Rostedt To: Adam Mercer Cc: LKML In-Reply-To: <799406d60501021649737f1bd@mail.gmail.com> References: <1697129508.20050102210332@dns.toxicfilms.tv> <20050102203615.GL29332@holomorphy.com> <20050102212427.GG2818@pclin040.win.tue.nl> <20050102214211.GM29332@holomorphy.com> <20050102221534.GG4183@stusta.de> <20050103001917.GO29332@holomorphy.com> <20050103003857.GJ4183@stusta.de> <799406d60501021649737f1bd@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Kihon Technologies Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 07:13:16 -0500 Message-Id: <1104754396.20042.283.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2005-01-03 at 00:49 +0000, Adam Mercer wrote: > On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 01:38:58 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > 2.4.27 -> 2.4.28 is a kernel upgrade that is very unlikely to cause > > problems. > > > > Compared to this, 2.6.9 -> 2.6.10 is much more likely to break an > > existing setup that worked in 2.6.9 . Yes, it broke my NVIDIA module. I had to hack it to get it to work. Yes, yes, I know NVIDIA bad and all that, but it is an example, and those that have NVIDIA cards and want 3D graphics, need to bow to the evil power that is. > > IIRC 2.4.9 -> 2.4.10 broke a few setups as well. > IIRC, there was a big argument to what was going on in the 2.4.9->2.4.10 kernel. Mainly the new VM. Alan Cox didn't want to include it because a change like that was too big for a stable release. Actually, I thought that 2.4.0 -> 2.4.14 was still unstable, and didn't migrate much on my "stable" machines, until 2.4.14. I think both approaches have their pros and cons. Maybe the problem is that 2.x -> 2.x+1 is too slow. If it was faster, then it wouldn't be a problem. The way I develop applications/libraries is that if I change an interface, it changes the second number, and if I make major changes the first is changed. Maybe keep 2.6.x just for bug fixes (like usual) and start 2.7 for updates and jump quicker to 2.8. When a major design is done, that should be 3.0. I believe that the kernel has settled with the 2.6 series to not be jumping to something different as 2.4->2.6 did any time soon. So maybe make 3.0 the next big change, and let the 2.x rise quicker. As to use the distribution kernels? People do that? The first thing I do when installing a distribution, is to download and run the latests kernel ;-) -- Steve