<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/11/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">David Brodbeck</b> <<a href="mailto:gull@gull.us">gull@gull.us</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>On Sep 8, 2007, at 6:27 PM, Brian Wood wrote:<br>> IMHO the real problem is that the Linux kernel itself has become
<br>> such a<br>> moving target that it is hard for groups like LIRC/IVTV to keep up<br>> with<br>> the efforts of Linus and Co. to "not be bored".<br><br>Personally, I really feel like dropping the alternating stable/
<br>unstable kernel release pattern was a bad idea. I would have rather<br>had a stable 2.6 and then a 2.7 tree for the new stuff. It took a<br>good dozen releases for 2.6 to really become stable enough for day to<br>day use.
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>They do have a stable kernel:</div>
<div>2.6.22.x.</div>
<div>Before that I believe it was 2.6.16.x</div>
<div> </div>
<div>All they're doing is not doing a FULL branch for the dev kernel. Once a slightly older release has bene found to be stable it is maintained for quite a while. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>It's also reccomended by Linus that you use your distro's kernel, which should be stableized by them. It seems that the linux kernel project is now more of a "feeder project" for distributions than it was in the past.
</div><br> </div>