Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:57:13 -0400 (EDT) | From | Benjamin Scott <> | Subject | Re: config-menus |
| |
[Momentary delurk]
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote: >>>> What is the difference between experimental/dangerous, except the latter >>>> scares people. >>> >>> That was kind of the idea... There is a reason for flagging code >>> DANGEROUS. >> >> You are entirely mistaken. If I enable EXPERIMENTAL ... >> it is because my machine has a RealTek 8139 ethernet card. > > This gives an opportunity to make it clearer what things are experimental > in a "safe" way (ok, you might hang your computer and lose a file or two, > but you'll have most of your disk intact), and what's really mean.
I agree that there are more then two levels of "finishedness" in most code, the kernel included. Some things are tried-and-true dependable. Some things are still not widely tested, maybe a bit shaky, but generally okay. And some things eat data for breakfast.
Usage of DANGEROUS, EXPERIMENTAL, and (null) here seems to parallel more mainstream computer use of ALPHA, BETA, and STABLE (or PRODUCTION).
In fact, the kernel releases themselves seem to want to be classified this way, rather then the two-tier level we have now. Witness the pre-patches, "ac" patches, and the "x.y.z has issues, use x.y.n or x.y.m instead" advisories. However, as a Kernel List Lurker(TM), I'm not going to suggest a change in something that fundamental. Or did I just do just that? Oh-oh...
[Relurking]
-- Benjamin Scott dragonhawk@iname.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |