On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 02:55:13PM +0900, Horms wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 05:35:52PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > So I am definately of the oppinion that we would be trading old bugs for > new. But that may not be such a bad thing. For one, we know some of the > bugs in 2.6.8 that hurt us (xfs, ACPI, ...) are in a better state in > 2.6.10 - I am personally running 2.6.10 on systems that I use 2.6 on, > and so are other people I work with, and its because 2.6.8 didn't work > for one reason or another. For another it would be an excellent chance > reduce from 3 (2.6.8,9,10) to one, the number of 2.6 kernels on d.o, and > thus focus our efforts on one 2.6. In fact, if I was asked for one > recommendation that would be it. > The 2.6 development model places the onus of stabalisation much more > firmly on the distributions. I am of the mind that Debian would have > more chance in getting things stabalised if we can focus on one 2.6 > kernel. Er, yes, I thought it was fairly clear that the plan for sarge is to release only one 2.4 kernel version, synced across architectures, and one 2.6 kernel version, synced across architectures. For 2.6, this currently means 2.6.8. I hope you don't mean to say the kernel team has been putting a lot of effort into not only one, but *two* other kernel versions that are not currently slated for sarge and will not last until etch? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature