Since I poke my head out of the foxhole every once in a while with a
relatively late-breaking bug report, I thought I should chime in...
Mr. Anvin has pretty much nailed it...
As the kernel development process has evolved, which "confidence level"
I select has evolved as well. The thing that *hasn't* changed through
the years is, I tend to pick a "confidence level" that is appropriately
close to "mainline" and has an update release schedule roughly compatible
with my ability to keep up with it. Specifically, if it takes me several
hours to download a patch set, apply it, build the new kernel, and test
on multiple platforms/architectures, then the update release schedule is
probably going to have to be no more often than twice a week if I'm going
to be at all interested in even trying to keep up with it. In 2008, the
"-rcX" updates are a good fit. In the not-too-distant past, keeping up
with 2.5.X.Y was no problem.
Yes, I realize I don't *have* to test every revision level in every
major tree, but I don't have to think about which one to pick for testing
if I can keep up with the update release schedule :-).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Tracy | "I was a beta tester for dirt. They never did
rct@frus.com | get all the bugs out." - Steve McGrew on /.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
