| |||||||||||||
2.6.0-test9 user2.6.0-test9 userPosted Nov 20, 2003 18:00 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047)In reply to: 2.6.0-test9 user by rwmj Parent article: 2.6 patch policy I'm hardly a kernel developer, but I quite like this idea, myself. Consider: as soon as Linus orders a "stabilization freeze", then 2.7 forks off. Initially, 2.7 and 2.6 are the same tree. Changes which help 2.7 can be easily backported to 2.6 later in the stable tree's development cycle, but in the meantime 2.6 has some real stability, and patches aren't being dropped. This way, everybody wins. Patches are going into a tree and getting testing, development continues, and the stable tree has a chance to crystalize.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||