Lol. You should try VMS. Now *there* was a stable system.
Oh, but it didn't actually make any progress, did it?
The fact is, we're merging a lot. It comes from having a lot of
development. If you don't want that, then you're a fool - because you
aren't looking at the long term.
Can you point to any actual stability problem?
The problem under discussion is the fact that some people are unhappy
because we had some merge trouble. The fact is, the problems got fixed in
a few days. And yes, we will probably will have to make Ingo follow the
rules that pretty much everybody else also follows, and no, it's not going
to solve all problems either - the fundamental issue is that we are just
too damn good at development.
And that's not a big problem in my view, as long as we are also also able
to handle the _result_ of that flood of patches. Which, quite frankly, we
are.
DavidN, you just have an agenda, and you think that mentioning BSD as some
kind of shining example of goodness is a good way to reach that agenda. It
isn't. It just shows that you don't understand the issue, and that you
think that "threatening" developers by saying you'll switch is a great way
to make PR.
But you know what? I really don't care one _whit_ what you do. You can
switch to Vista for all I care, and I really don't mind. All I care about
is doing a good job technically.
And you just show that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
If you want stable kernel, don't follow the current -git tree. Don't mind
the fact that in two weeks we merge
6672 files changed, 373817 insertions(+), 285901 deletions(-)
and instead look at something like the enterprise kernels or other tree
that lags the development tree by half a year or more exactly _because_
they care about stable, not development.
In short: what do you think the git tree is? Is it something that should
prioritize good developmnent, or is it something that should worry about
you making inane arguments? Ask yourself that.
Linus
--
