Re: starting with 2.7
[Posted January 5, 2005 by corbet]
| From: |
| Alan Cox <alan-AT-lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> |
| To: |
| "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap-AT-osdl.org> |
| Subject: |
| Re: starting with 2.7 |
| Date: |
| Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:06:15 +0000 |
| Cc: |
| Russell King <rmk+lkml-AT-arm.linux.org.uk>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso-AT-mit.edu>, Bill Davidsen <davidsen-AT-tmr.com>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk-AT-stusta.de>,
Diego Calleja <diegocg-AT-teleline.es>,
Willy Tarreau <willy-AT-w.ods.org>, wli-AT-holomorphy.com,
aebr-AT-win.tue.nl, solt2-AT-dns.toxicfilms.tv,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org> |
| Archive-link: |
| Article,
Thread
|
On Llu, 2005-01-03 at 19:26, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> Agreed. We (whoever "we" are) have erred too much on longer
> cycles for stability, but it's not working out as hoped IMO.
After 2.6.9-ac its clear that the long 2.6.9 process worked very badly.
While 2.6.10 is looking much better its long period meant the allegedly
"official" base kernel was a complete pile of insecure donkey turd for
months. That doesn't hurt most vendor users but it does hurt those
trying to do stuff on the base kernels very badly.
Alan
(
Log in to post comments)
