Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering
From: Jeff Garzik (jgarzik_at_pobox.com)
Date: 03/03/05
- Previous message: Peter Chubb: "Re: [PATCH] Fixing address space lock contention in 2.6.11"
- In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering"
- Next in thread: Ben Greear: "Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering"
- Reply: Ben Greear: "Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering"
- Reply: David S. Miller: "Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering"
- Reply: Valdis.Kletnieks_at_vt.edu: "Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:32:23 -0500 To: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
I also note that part of the problem that motivates the even/odd thing
is a tacit acknowledgement that people only _really_ test the official
releases.
Which IMHO backs up my opinion that we simply need more frequent releases.
Part of this is a scalability problem. Linux probably has more changes
flowing into it than any other OS kernel on the planet. We must deal
with an ever-increasing number of changesets in a way that produces a
usable kernel for our users.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Peter Chubb: "Re: [PATCH] Fixing address space lock contention in 2.6.11"
- In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering"
- Next in thread: Ben Greear: "Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering"
- Reply: Ben Greear: "Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering"
- Reply: David S. Miller: "Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering"
- Reply: Valdis.Kletnieks_at_vt.edu: "Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|