On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 03:27:31PM +0100, Ducrot Bruno wrote:
>...
> I disagree with you. It introduces more enhancements,
> and more bugfix than the current code. I admit that tt
> could introduce some news bugs, but in the balance it
> should be more stable than before.
>...
It's not "in the balance". 2.4 is a stable kernel series. The problem is
that if you switch from one stable kernel series to another
(e.g. 2.2 -> 2.4) on a production machine you know that you have to
check whether everything works as before you upgrade your production
machines. This can take quite some time. Within a stable kernel series
everything that worked in earlier kernels within this series should work
in future kernels in this kernel series. Don't forget that e.g. a
fixed security problem might force people to do a quick upgrade of
production machines to the latest kernel in this series.
There's always the possibility that you apply patches or use one of the
many two-to-four-letter patches which might contain the patch you
need.
Note: I don't know the specific situation with the new ACPI code and
whether it might be good to include it, my arguments are an
answer to your "in the balance" argument.
> Cheers,
cu
Adrian
--"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- 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 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:28 EST