Udev in b6_0: to be or not to be

Jeroen Coumans jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Jun 1 14:54:06 PDT 2004

Matthew Burgess said the following on 01-06-2004 21:19:
> like has been done in the past?  I'm confused.  We *need* constant
> development in order to maintain inertia in the project and prevent the

Here's what I understood about the new LFS development model:

Former LFS development model:
* CVS branch gets new development
* when CVS is stable enough, put out a testing release
* when the testing release is stable enough, release it

New LFS development model:
* unstable always gets new development
* testing pulls from unstable, making it ready for stable
* when testing is stable enough, release

What you describe is very much like our former development model. It 
would require a "stabilising" of CVS HEAD (unstable), very much like we 
have now. New development, like integrating a new glibc (if there was 
any), is out of the question right now. Thus, development has halted 
until a testing release is created.

The new model was intended to solve this. By using three development 
paths which coexist in parallel, each can move at its own pace, 
independent of eachother. Stable can still exist and receive bug fixes 
(such as security issues) while a new release is prepared in testing. 
Unstable can move fast-forward, integrating new technologies as they 
become available.

Jeroen Coumans

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list