| |||||||||||||
Kroah-Hartman: Help wantedKroah-Hartman: Help wantedPosted Nov 2, 2012 21:45 UTC (Fri) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474)Parent article: Kroah-Hartman: Help wanted
Friendly advice from libguestfs: We found that having fewer stable branches helped to keep focus. Now we have a maximum of 2. The kernel could do the same by saying (for example) that every alternate release won't have an associated stable branch, or by deprecating older stable branches more quickly.
(Log in to post comments)
Kroah-Hartman: Help wanted Posted Nov 3, 2012 0:15 UTC (Sat) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Depends (a) how many maintainers you have, and (b) how many "consumers" you have.
Can you imagine how hard it would be to get SUSE, RH, Ubuntu, and any other distros with LTS's, all to pick the same kernel for their releases in approximately the same time frame?
And actually, I think the kernel team only have ONE serious branch, not several. There are several development branches, that all feed into the "one true branch", that then leaves a trail of stable and semi-stable branches in its wake. And each branch has its own raison d'etre.
Cheers,
Kroah-Hartman: Help wanted Posted Nov 10, 2012 12:26 UTC (Sat) by phil42 (guest, #5175) [Link]
the one true way! so elegant, so satisfying
^one upvote
|
|||||||||||||