|| ||Alan Cox <alan-AT-lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>|
|| ||"Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap-AT-osdl.org>|
|| ||Re: starting with 2.7|
|| ||Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:06:15 +0000|
|| ||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,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>|
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.
to post comments)