On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 01:24:34PM +0200, Omer Zak wrote: > The differences, relative to today's 2.(2n).* vs. 2.(2n+1).* approach > would be: > 1. At any moment of time, there will be both stabilizing and development > kernels at the bleeding edge. > 2. Linus will concern himself only with development kernels.
Linus said "I suck at maintainance", and expressed hope that Marcelo would do it better. So it we are already on the right path... IIRC Linus usually gives two reasons for why he wants the unstable kernel to stabilize a bit before starting a new unstable tree: one is that he doesn't want to divert developer attention away from the stablizing kernel to the new one too soon, and the second is that Linus thinks it's important for the new kernel to start from a well known and well understood state, which can only be achieved by a relatively long testing and stabilization process. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Linus limits himself to the role of "architect" like he hinted. ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
