In article <20011201113734.5187E38329@fever.semiotek.com> you wrote:
> And the kernels on kernel.org *are* tested, by lots of people, by kernel
> developers, by lots of ordinary folks even. I bet right after theren's
> an announce on slashdot you see lots of traffic on the ftp/http sites.
The problem is that there is absoloutly no defined QA-cycle for these
kernels. Please take a look at what distributors (at least most, I know
at least one counter-example):
o they freeze at one public kernel release
o they do testing, lots of testing
o they apply bugfixes for problems found in their debugging
or coming in new releases _only_. No new major changes that
might break things.
That's why new distribution releases tend to come with 'old-looking'
With kernel.org release _any_ new release mixes features, rewrites and
bugfixes. I hope this will change a little for 2.4 now that Marcelo
who does the above cycle for for Conectiva takes over maintainership.
But in can't in whole - noone would really freeze the stable series
as strict as distributors do.
-- Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/