A Linux Kernel More Stable Than -stable

jfruhlinger writes '-stable' is the term for the current Linux release most suitable for general use; but as Linux moves into more and more niches, there's a need for a kernel more stable than -stable, which is updated fairly regularly. Both enterprise and embedded systems in particular need a longer horizon of kernel stability, which prompted Greg Kroah-Hartman, then at SuSE, to establish a -longterm kernel, which will remain stable for up to two years. Now there are moves to get this schedule formalized — moves that are a good sign of Linux's long-term health."

Comments

Do Firefox Devs Dream of Stable Releases?

[Tackhead]

Both enterprise and embedded systems in particular need a longer horizon of kernel stability, which prompted Greg Kroah-Hartman, then at SuSE, to establish a -longterm kernel, which will remain stable for up to two years.

Have you ever taken a Kroah-Hartman test? It's a test designed to provoke an emotional response.

Hartman: You're in a repository, compiling a kernel, when all of a sudden you look down.
Dotzler: What version?
Hartman: What?
Dotzler: What version?
Hartman: It doesn't make any difference what version - it's completely hypothetical.
Dotzler: That's what I've been trying to convince the world all week!
Hartman: Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? You look down at the screen and see the codebase in TortoiseGIT. It's crawling toward release.
Dotzler: TortoiseGIT? What's that?
Hartman: You know what TortoiseSVN was?
Dotzler: Of course!
Hartman: Same thing.
Dotzler: I've never seen a stable UI. But I understand what you mean.
Hartman: You merge some code down, change the UI, and increment the release number just for the hell of it, Asa.
Dotzler: Do you make up these questions Mr. Hartman? Or do Slashdotters just write cheap pop culture parodies instead of working?
Hartman: The project lays on its back, its belly baking in the white-hot flames of a thousand angry users, beating its legs trying to make itself stable but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
Dotzler: What do you mean I'm not helping?
Hartman: I mean you're not helping! Why is that, Asa? (pause) They're just questions, Asa. In answer to your query, it was either this or a filk based on a Rob Zombie song. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response. Shall we continue?
Dotzler: Nothing is worse than having an itch you can never scratch!
Hartman: Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about your mother.
Dotzler: My mother?
Hartman: Yeah.
Dotzler: Let me tell you about my mother... *BLAM BLAM BLAM*

"More stable than -stable", that's our motto.

Re:What will this do to version numbering?

[MasterPatricko]

"this guy" is Greg K-H, second-in-command to Linus and the maintainer of the -stable tree. His arguments were one of the main reasons Linus changed the 3.0 numbering. Greg is just proposing that he maintains another tree officially, not a "fork".
As for version numbering, I think there will be 3 numbers - first two for mainline releases, and one more for stable/longterm patch level. I don't think -longterm will be needing an extra number.