Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Linux 2.6.30-rc2 Kernel Released

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,240

    Default Linux 2.6.30-rc2 Kernel Released

    Phoronix: Linux 2.6.30-rc2 Kernel Released

    Last week Linux 2.6.30-rc1 was released, but this afternoon Linus Torvalds has pushed out the second release candidate for the Linux 2.6.30 kernel series. The second release candidate introduces a new architecture (called microblaze), an input layer update, a new Intel virtual networking driver, firmware loading updates, and Intel graphics driver updates. The Microblaze processor architecture is developed by Xilinx for some of their FPGA products and is a 32-bit Harvard RISC architecture. The Linux 2.6.30-rc2 kernel release announcement can be read at LKML.org...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzIwNA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Isn't a release candidate suppose to be the final version unless bugs are found?

    If that's the case, how can it be that new features are added to a RC?

    I am pretty sure Mozilla releases work that why.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    206

    Default

    @Louise, read more about kernel versioning system eh?

    Btw, rc2 patch is borked and doesn't apply cleanly yet, I never seen anything like that before.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Die trolls, die!
    Posts
    525

    Default

    I also can't understand this. Why is a release candidate supposed to contain bugs? In my opinion many RCs are actually "beta"s.

    For me RC inplies that there are no known bugs. D:

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bugmenot View Post
    I also can't understand this. Why is a release candidate supposed to contain bugs? In my opinion many RCs are actually "beta"s.

    For me RC inplies that there are no known bugs. D:
    yes, why would it else be called a "release candidate" ? Unless you of course plan to ship a bugged version

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    233

    Default

    They only do that, to name betas as RC, to have more people to test.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    It is unfortunate but unfortunately there is no set in stone standard to which software development phases are followed. Alpha, beta, RC designations are determined by the project group rather then a standard. Just look how many bugs still riddle Wine even though after 10 years of Alpha status in a few months it went as Final with pages of known bugs still open.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    192

    Default

    It's still "slushy."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy View Post
    It's still "slushy."
    Heh they should rename the -ck branch to the -rip branch. Too bad they pissed the only guy that really gave a crap about desktop performance in the kernel.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Heh they should rename the -ck branch to the -rip branch. Too bad they pissed the only guy that really gave a crap about desktop performance in the kernel.
    Devil's advocate:

    If his departure from the scene was so detrimental then what does that say about the validity of benchmarking done here with PTS?

    Surely he's not the only one who cares, but is he the only one who can influence desktop performance within the kernel? If Prey, Unreal, and Nexuiz all take a nosedive in 2.6.31 (backed by PTS) will that news cause any reaction within the kernel development community leading to better performance in say 2.6.33 or 2.6.34?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •