2.6 and 2.7 Release Management

An anonymous reader writes: "A recent discussion on the Linux kernel mailing list debated whether the upcoming 2.6 and 2.7 kernels should be released at the same time instead of first stabilizing the 2.6 'stable tree' then branching the 2.7 'development tree.' The theory behind the proposition is to keep "new" things from going into 2.6 once it is released, focusing instead only on making it stable. On the flip side of this argument is the possibility that with a 2.7 kernel in development, there will be too little focus on stabilizing the 2.6 kernel. The resulting debate makes for an interesting read."

Comments

Re:...trolls and such like...

[Tassleman]

That's why I generally browse at -1, most of the good shit is down there.

Re:Idea

[Com2Kid]

Just a note, Windows 2000 GUI crashes an average of 6 times every 6 hours in my experience,

Nice math their buddy, that is called once an hour....

Granted I had Windows 2000 core dump on me ~10-12 times yesterday (w00t) and another good 3 or 4 unexplained crashes, but that is all because I have managed to fuck up the DirectX sub layer to hell and well, err, heh;

when it IS running properly (which it will be as soon as I manage to find the install disks. ^_^ ) it has very long uptimes, though it is awfully dependent on what you are doing. After the first 3 or 4 hundred program installs/uninstalls things to tend to, err, get a bit cluttered, heh.

Then again I would like to see you do that many program installs in as short a time on a *nix box. :-D

Bah, what am I saying, dependencies suck period, no matter what OS you are on. :(

Oh, and the *nixs DO have a shitty ass GUI system, seriously, there needs to be a BIG effort to ditch X and get a real system underneath that, technology has advanced a lot in the intervening years since X came out, hell, just the pure CS theory stuff has advanced a good deal, for crying out loud, come up with a better system. Or at least a more coherent one. It has taken MS how long and how many revisions/API changes to get even a /somewhat/ understandable API running underneath things? Hell, if even MS can admit that GUI APIs are a not going to be gotten right the first time, certainly the OpenSource community can admit to the same thing and do it again until it IS gotten right. Yes it would be a lot of work, but it would be worth it. (and had somebody started back in 1999 or so it might be nearly complete by now....)