Are we going too fast?
'Twas brillig when Mike Edwards scrobe:
Quoted 2 lines
I think that's a bit unfair. Rather, I suspect people see the
word 'stable', and assume, for some unknown reason, that the kernel is >stable.
*AHEM*
Whatever truth value 2.4 has for the variable stable, it can not be stored in a boolean type.
'Stable' means that the direction of development is intended to reduce the number of bugs not add new features unless they can reasonably be shown to not introduce major bugs. That the 2.5 tree has not been opened indicates the recognition that additional concentrated work on 2.4 is needed.
Quoted 3 lines
Seriously, though - even distributions are including 2.4 kernels now. RedHat, Mandrake, Slackware ... Should the latest versions of these distributions be considered unstable as well?
Even older releases of distributions are maintained. Should we ever get to kernel 2.2.38, the distribution maintainers should be releasing bugfix patches for older distributions with the latest 2.2 kernel.
Quoted 2 lines
Perhaps it needs to be made clear to people that these kernels still aren't all they could be.
No kernel is perfect. The judgement was that it was ready to switch from adding features to increasing stability. Thus it has ever been since my first kernel ~= 0.95.
Signature · 2 lines
Roy Murphy \ CSpice -- A mailing list for Clergy Spouses [email protected] \ http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html