| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Stable releasesStable releasesPosted Dec 17, 2004 20:11 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: Stable releases by mrshiny Parent article: Quote of the week This is why the kernel needs a stable release, Exactly. However, some of the discussion here seems to suggest that Greg and his peers should provide it. There's simply no reason to expect that. Instead, we need distributors, whom we pay to give us what we need, to provide a stable release. They can take high-reward low-risk changes from kernel.org and add those, and they can skip compatibility-busting changes (or, more likely, make the minor modification required to make the change backward compatible). Since distributors used to get a lot more free help with that from kernel.org (via the e.g. 2.4 "stable" series) than they do now, I'm still waiting to see if they step up to that responsibility with 2.6-based kernels.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||