From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262829AbVAFODb (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:03:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262831AbVAFODb (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:03:31 -0500 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.203]:33868 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262829AbVAFOD1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 09:03:27 -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:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=KuTHMlGl6WNZu9ZG9ZlyNf/pkVL3DHWQ/CezV/5GTwxrhfolRQshFifMdLNXg+Z5U2b43/N0M0ZXv7vJ4/q3MVrXR+gIxmfjINqDg2po/UavkkRlZV9ep/q+yiqpUgsUxJqZVO7KUyqPv+aVTwYT65bE4FGSI9lbK49lV9wjIh4= Message-ID: <4d8e3fd30501060603247e955a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:03:26 +0100 From: Paolo Ciarrocchi Reply-To: Paolo Ciarrocchi To: "Theodore Ts'o" , Bill Davidsen , Adrian Bunk , Diego Calleja , Willy Tarreau , wli@holomorphy.com, aebr@win.tue.nl, solt2@dns.toxicfilms.tv, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 In-Reply-To: <20050103183621.GA2885@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20050103134727.GA2980@stusta.de> <20050103183621.GA2885@thunk.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:36:21 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 12:18:36PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > I have to say that with a few minor exceptions the introduction of new > > features hasn't created long term (more than a few days) of problems. And > > we have had that in previous stable versions as well. New features > > themselves may not be totally stable, but in most cases they don't break > > existing features, or are fixed in bk1 or bk2. What worries me is removing > > features deliberately, and I won't beat that dead horse again, I've said > > my piece. > > Indeed. Part of the problem is that we don't get that much testing > with the rc* releases, so there are a lot of problems that don't get > noticed until after 2.6.x ships. This has been true for both 2.6.9 > and 2.6.10. My personal practice is to never run with 2.6.x release, > but wait for 2.6.x plus one or 2 days (i.e. bk1 or bk2). The problems > with this approach are that (1) out-of-tree patches against official > versions of the kernel (i.e., things like the mppc/mppe patch) don't > necessarly apply cleanly, and (2) other more destablizing patches get > folded in right after 2.6.x ships, so there is a chance bk1 or bk2 may > not be stable. What's wrong in keeping the release management as is now plus introducing a 2.6.X.Y series of kernels ? In short: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=109882220123966&w=2 Best, Paolo Ciarrocchi