* Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:

quoted text
> You keep saying that but it simply is not true. The more people we
> have _waiting_ for a "stable" kernel to graduate from the "testing"
> series, the less people we have actually _testing_ the kernel.

ACK.

I, personally use the newest releases on mostly unimportant 
systems, where a kernel bug is ugly but not that bad.
For production systems I use the stableized/well-tested distro
kernels, eg. unmasked on Gentoo). If you're using such an distro,
you already have an more tested kernel, less chance of bugs
(than with vanilla).

My suggestion istead is bringing these individual efforts from 
distros to some central point, let's call this "mature kernel".
This (IMHO) wouldn't affect the current development/release 
process, mission-critical systems can simply use that mature 
tree, and perhaps some pressure is taken from vanilla.


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
unsubscribe notice
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/