From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261973AbVADCg4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 21:36:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261886AbVADCg4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 21:36:56 -0500 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.199]:23875 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262030AbVADCgo (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 21:36:44 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=ZwFRQ71BAUNjWV86I6Bf7HerNuDDqEWQBQHLhrisIahCIs8V2d3uVPxxwYIK5QI8jVAMBcfGJ4k4rn7k2+oSE0u1xYhj4X/KGUL526iRDxIwsCq1xT+UhJfYWxONUQ8zAYxZ6PN/TbUiKMqoqYUov0SPOLHwYWHIcr0mDxpbu7g= Message-ID: <4d8e3fd305010318362c864025@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 03:36:43 +0100 From: Paolo Ciarrocchi Reply-To: Paolo Ciarrocchi To: Roman Zippel Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 Cc: Diego Calleja , Willy Tarreau , wli@holomorphy.com, bunk@stusta.de, davidsen@tmr.com, aebr@win.tue.nl, solt2@dns.toxicfilms.tv, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200501040306.28221.zippel@linux-m68k.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20050102221534.GG4183@stusta.de> <20050103053304.GA7048@alpha.home.local> <20050103142412.490239b8.diegocg@teleline.es> <200501040306.28221.zippel@linux-m68k.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 03:06:25 +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Monday 03 January 2005 14:24, Diego Calleja wrote: > > > I fully agree with WLI that the 2.4 development model and the > > backporting-mania created more problems than it solved, because in the real > > world almost everybody uses what distros ship, and what distros ship isn't > > kernel.org but heavily modified kernels, which means that the kernel.org > > was not really "well-tested" or it took much longer to become "well-tested" > > because it wasn't really being used. > > Backporting isn't the primary problem. The real problem were the huge time > intervals between stable releases. A new stable release brings a huge amount > of changes which got different levels of testing, which makes upgrading quite > an experience. > What we need are regular releases of stable kernels with a manageable amount > of changes and a development tree to pull these changes from. It's a bit > comparable to Debian testing/unstable. Changes go only from one tree to the > other if they fulfil certain criteria. The job of the stable tree maintainer > wouldn't be anymore to apply random patches sent to him, but to select > instead which patches to pull from the development tree. > This doesn't of course guarantees perfectly stable kernels, but it would > encourage more people to run recent stable kernels and avoids the huge steps > in kernel upgrades. The only problem is that I don't know of any source code > management system which supports this kind of development reasonably easy... It really makes sense. vanilla and -mm are already a kind of stable/unstale tree though. -- Paolo