> >I'm completely again this. The main target is a stable kernel, and not to
> >make some release date. If that is the target, things are going the WRONG
> >way.
>
> I agree completely with your concern on with release dates and stablity.
> But stablity is also dependent on how much new functionally is added. The
> more stuff added in at one time (especially when its outside the project
> scope) increases the complexity. If goals are established before work is
> begun, there is a more likely chance of achieving a better development
> cycle. Release dates are totally unimportant, but release goals are.
This is already done this way : Stable tree hardly get big feature
updates, and the devel tree get mangled around.
Setting goals at the beginning of the three means you know what is needed,
and that seems a process that just grows along the way.
> >You normale test agains a stable release to be somehow sure that there is
> >not a undiscovered bug biting you.
>
> Absolutely. I thought by having a second development kernel for testing
> large new features you would have a longer time for testing and tweaking.
> Some features will simply required a much longer time to develop and
> troubleshoot.
> I thought about that. But some features can only be installed as kernel
> modules.
Correct. I choose to disable them al along. I don't need them, and they
are a security risk.
Igmar
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:21 EST