Re: Stability

[Alistair Riddoch]

Alan Cox writes:
> 
> > The only reason I suggested using 0.1 as the stable tree is because we are
> > currently heading towards making 0.1.0 a stable version.
> 
> Well we've never applied any idea of stable/not before 1.0 to mainstream
> Linux. I think tradition is 0.x = unfinished
> 

The problem with this model is that ELKS is going to be stable long before
it is finished. :-)

Its probably best to just stick to one development tree for now, and set
milestones at 0.2 0.3 etc.

Al