On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 21:30 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > You cannot have it both ways. Either the kernel needs testers, or it is > "stable". See how these are opposites?
I don't see a contradiction. You need testers for release candidates to make them stable. The problem is that Linux release candidates are not release candidates. > We don't _need_ people to test stable kernels, because they're stable. > (OK, we'll pick up on a few things, but we'd pick up on them if people were > testing tip-of-tree, as well). I don't see that the releases are stable. They are defined stable by proclamation. > The 2.6.x.y thing is a service to people who want 2.6.x with kinks ironed > out. It's not particularly interesting or useful from a development POV, > apart from its potential to attract a few people who are presently stuck on > 2.4 or 2.6.crufty. This 2.6.x.y tree will change nothing as long as the underlying problem is not solved. > It won't help that at all. None of these proposals will increase testing > of tip-of-tree. In fact the 2.6.x proposal may decrease that level of > that testing, although probably not much. > There is no complete answer to all of this, because there are competing > needs. It's a question of balance. A clearly defined switch from -preX to -rc will give the avarage user a clear sign where he might jump in and test. 2.6.11-rc5 (which is -pre5 in disguise) would have been the real point for a -rc1 ...-rcX freeze and testing phase. tglx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
