| |||||||||||
2.7 fork?2.7 fork?Posted May 13, 2004 17:32 UTC (Thu) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803)Parent article: Kernel release status Any ideas if they're about ready to fork 2.7? Seems like it's about time. OTOH, since 2.6.6 was such a huge patch, they might want to give it a bit of time to stabilize before the fork. I *really* hope they cut down on the huge patches soon. 2.6 is supposed to be *stable*! Seems like half the things mentioned should be 2.7 material.
(Log in to post comments)
2.7 fork? Posted May 14, 2004 0:54 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I *really* hope they cut down on the huge patches soon. 2.6 is supposed to be *stable*I don't think anyone seriously believes 2.6 to be stable, but stabilizing would be nice. As Linus and others noted during 2.5 development, history has shown that people won't begin the testing necessary for stabilization until the even-numbered releases begin. Of course, what we're seeing is 2.6 not even stabilizing. I have the distinct impression that developers are losing interest in the development/stabilizing system because it isn't working. The even numbered series are too far apart and people won't use the odd numbered ones. If they really believed in the two stream system, 2.7 would have been created at the same moment as 2.6, and every change would have gone into 2.7 first, and then ported to 2.6 if it's not destabilizing. But that would require more effort from developers than what they're givng now.
|
|||||||||||