[linux-elitists] New Kernel Dev model...

Mike MacCana mikem@cyber.com.au
Thu Jul 22 17:49:34 PDT 2004

Heya Greg,

On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 13:36 -0400, Greg Folkert wrote:
> I have mixed feelings about this... leaving the stabilizations to the
> Vendors/Distros... It was already happening... but why make it defacto.

As you say, this just codifies existing practice. Mainline 2.4 wasn't
stable (think VM change), 2.6 won't be either. 

In both cases, distros were responsible for handing stability. This
keeps that, but without kernel.org confusing people by telling them X
means stable when it doesn't.

> I like development models that are Dev->Test->QA->RC->Release for
> Production builds.

Me too - but distros are in a better position to do that testing than
kernel.org. Think tens of thousands of people running 2.x.y with the
same build options.

> This WILL slow the adoption of Linux more than SCO did... those weenie CXOs are the
> ones trembling when a development model changes like this. 

CIOs (who, like developers, may or may not be weenies) never used
kernel.org kernels. Most people don't - AFAIK, Debian is the only
mainstream distro that ships anything like a vanilla kernel. For them
nothing changes - the message just gets clearer. Use what your distro
has tested and supports.


Mike MacCana <mikem@cyber.com.au>

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list