From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S270763AbRHNTjx>; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:39:53 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S270757AbRHNTje>; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:39:34 -0400
Received: from mta1n.bluewin.ch ([195.186.1.210]:48581 "EHLO mta1n.bluewin.ch")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S270695AbRHNTj0>;
	Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:39:26 -0400
Message-ID: <3B790EE100026F51@mta1n.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch)
From: "Per Jessen" <per@computer.org>
To: "Helge Hafting" <helgehaf@idb.hist.no>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "PinkFreud" <pf-kernel@mirkwood.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 21:47:53 +0200
Reply-To: "Per Jessen" <per@computer.org>
X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 95 (4.0.1212)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Are we going too fast?
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:57:29 +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:

>PinkFreud wrote:
>[...]
>
>> > Matter of opinion. I would say that Linux-2.4 has been way long to come
>> > and wasn't quite ready for stable status. There are numerous other O/Ses
>> 
>> That's what I've been attempting to say, as well.  It seems to have been
>> released too quickly - minimal testing, too many bugs.
>
>The testing isn't minimal - it is merely ongoing.  Users don't
>pay for the kernel, so they are part of the testing team.
>
>If you use anything but a distribution kernel, keep previous
>kernels around when you upgrade.  If the new one fails, report
>it here and go back to the previous one.  The only way to get wide
>testing is when enough people do this.

Very true, although I get the feeling that the 2.2. series was far more
'stable' than the current 2.4 series. Just a feeling, but .... 
What you're saying seems to apply more to a 2.<odd> kernel series, IMHO ?

I haven't done this myself, but perhaps we ought to look at the frequency
of new 2.4 releases compared to new 2.2 releases. Shouldn't their frequency
be roughly equal ? ie. the speed with which we're seeing new 2.4 releases 
should be - roughly - that of which we saw new 2.2 kernels emerging ?

comments ?



regards,
Per Jessen, Zurich
http://www.enidan.com - home of the J1 serial console.

Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ...  I'm afraid I can't do that."