Originally posted by: drag
Ya but when you make a stable branch and it turns out to be wrong choice, then your F*CKED anyways, because they aren't going to change it. Because it's stable. It can't be fixed.
Then they should have tested it better in development.
If your right then everything that they picked for you from kernel 2.6.0 your just going to have to live with it until kernel 2.8 comes out in another 2-3 years or whatever. Because that's the stable branch and we can't do any fixes or improvements.
Fixes are fine. But major changes are not. Why? Because it is supposed to be stable.
And the 2-4 year development cycle is getting old. Can't they go with something sane?
How often do you upgrade your kernel anyways?
When a new stable one comes out.
Do your production boxes get a new kernel everytime a update is released, wouldn't that be a bit stupid even if there was a seperate 2.7 branch?
Why would it be stupid? The changes have been tested. They should be bug fixes.
I think you missunderstand. The developement branch isn't what is released in kernel.org, it's whatever the developers are working on. Whatever is in their CVS.
No, I understand just fine. I can download a stable branch (2.2, 2.4), or I can download a development branch (2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6). If I want stability, I stick with the stable branch. If I want new wizbang features with a good chance of prison butt, I get a development branch.
Whenever they get a snapshot they like, they make it a release canadate. Then they make another. And another, and another. Meanwhile anybody is free to back port and make patches. Distros use what they need to, and bugfixes still happen.
The backports don't typically make it into the vanilla kernel. Most of the backports I remember were included in the distro specific kernels. Like when the Linux kernel developers couldn't get USB working in a reasonable amount of time.
Just like any other free software software.
Except most FOSS projects have a stable and development branches. The Linux kernel no longer makes this distinction.
Then they release another 2.6.x kernel. Technology is progressing to fast to wait another 3 years for any new stuff.
Then change the amount of time it takes to release a new stable kernel.
Wouldn't it be stupid to ignore new ideas and better developements because you just decided that you can't change stuff, just because?
Yes. But keep development where it belongs.
Just automaticly have to dismiss everything because you deciced last year that you are not going to accept any new developements.
There will still be development going on. It's just out of the way so that users that need stability don't have to put up with the great unknown and barely tested.
When their is actually a REASON for 2.7, then they will start on it.
A new feature would be a reason for 2.7. But they're ignoring that.
They aren't eliminating it forever and forever. Their just isn't any point for one right now.
If there wasn't a point for a development branch, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Active development should be going on in a development branch.