From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263015AbVAFVQS (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:16:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263013AbVAFVO1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:14:27 -0500 Received: from prgy-npn1.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.37]:61119 "EHLO oddball.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262997AbVAFVJb (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:09:31 -0500 Message-ID: <41DDA8E1.8080406@tmr.com> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:08:49 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rol@as2917.net CC: "'Willy Tarreau'" , "'Theodore Ts'o'" , "'Horst von Brand'" , "'Thomas Graf'" , "'Adrian Bunk'" , "'Diego Calleja'" , wli@holomorphy.com, aebr@win.tue.nl, solt2@dns.toxicfilms.tv, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 References: <20050104214324.GG22075@alpha.home.local> <200501061808.j06I84104393@tag.witbe.net> In-Reply-To: <200501061808.j06I84104393@tag.witbe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul Rolland wrote: > Hello, > > >>>In practice, that's all the -rc releases are these days >> >>anyway (there >> >>>are times when a 2.6.x-rcy release is more stable than 2.6.z). The >>>problem is that since the -rc releases are called what they are >>>called, they don't get enough testing. >> >>Perfectly true. I would add that with -rc releases, people >>only upgrade when >>we tell them that they can, while with more frequent >>releases, they upgrade >>when they *need* to, and can try several versions if the >>first one they pick >>does not work. >> > > > I'd like to add some personal view : After 2.4.x, we have had a fork and > 2.5.x was born, clearly identified as a development tree, so no stability > guaranteed... Then one day came 2.6.0, and so on... > I'm sorry, but I still cannot consider 2.6.x being any stable the way 2.4.x > is today. > > Theodore wrote : > >>that at least 1 in 3 releases will turn out to be stable enough for >>most purposes. But we won't know until after 2 or 3 days which >>releases will be the good ones. > > > I mostly agree. When a new 2.4.x comes out, I have a confident feeling > about it, and there is no reason for me to wait 2 or 3 days to know if > it's stable or not. It's part of a stable branch, and there are no > major changes in it. > 2.6.x, I still consider as a development branch. OK, people changed the > numbering from 2.5.x to 2.6.x, but the number of changes still going on > didn't really change. Just have a look at the numbers : patches are even > bigger now that we are in a "stable" branch (4Mo average for 2.6 patch, > gzip when we had a 1Mo average for 2.5 !) I think you are quoting MB/release where MB/month would be much closer. Part of the "new development model" is that Linus only releases a new version the Thursday after the racoons tip over his garbage can. -- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me