On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 14:18, Mike Kirkland wrote: > On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:01:15 -0500 > Kumba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Markus Nigbur wrote: > > > > > I fully agree here. Even when portage merges the new kernel sources, > > > it needs user action to actually change to the new kernel. So why not > > > move them now? > > > > I brought this up with iggy a day or so ago in the IRC chanel, and the > > current rational is even though they should belong in vanilla-sources, > > as they're no longer in development, and even though users should know > > that vanilla-sources is just vanilla -- no gentoo patches, etc.., that > > by being in vanilla-sources, a 2.6.0 kernel will still trigger a wave of > > bug reports while the x86-kernel people aren't fully prepared yet. > > > > 2.6.0 works fine for me on x86, but then again I use purely console. > > From what I've heard, there are still problems when using X from time > > to time and such, so 2.6.0 isn't quite there yet. In fact, Andrew > > Morton, 2.6 maintainer, is still keeping his -mm tree alive, and most > > patches/fixes will go in there for testing before they wind up in the > > next 2.6.x release. (2.6.0-mm1 has a ton of patches). > > > > It'll get moved eventually, probably when x86-kernel has a few more > > people to sort out bugs. > > What about splitting vanilla into vanilla-2.4 and vanilla-2.6? Perhaps with the 2.6 > branch blocked to drive home the point that the 2.6 kernel isn't really ready for > production use yet. > > There's always going to be a disparity between desktop users who want shiny new > stuff to play with, and more production oriented people who want to wait and see.
Thats exactly what came to my mind now. I think that would be the best way to do -- Christian Gut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
