On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 01:52:54PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
> > What's the issue?
>
> a) We're at 2.4.19-rc1 right now. It would be horribly
> counterproductive to put O(1) in right now.
> b) 2.4 is the _stable_ tree. If every big change in 2.5 got back ported
> to 2.4, it'd be just like 2.5 :)
> c) I also suspect that it hasn't been as widley tested on !x86 as the
> stuff currently in 2.4. And again, 2.4 is the stable tree.
Since 2.5 feature freeze isn't planned until fall, I think you can assume
there will be releases after 2.4.19... Since it has been as heavily tested
as any feature not in a stable release kernel can be, there seems little
reason to put it off for a year, assuming 2.6 releases within six months
of feature freeze.
Stable doesn't mean moribund, we are working Andrea's VM stuff in, and
that's a LOT more likely to behave differently on hardware with other word
length. Keeping inferior performance for another year and then trying to
separate 2.5 other unintended features from any possible scheduler issues
seems like a reduction in stability for 2.6.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 07 2002 - 22:00:09 EST