Re: He's right. Again.
"I stopped paying close attention to the kernel when they abandoned the "stable" and "testing" branches, what was it the 2.4 days ? Before that it was say 2.0.x for stable, and 2.1.x for testing/dev, then 2.2 was stable, etc.."
You must have a short memory. What generally happened was that the unstable branch got dragged out too long and distros/maintainers would then try to backport required changes to the stable kernel resulting in TWO unstable branches. My all time favourite event during that time was a brand new IBM server where the "stable" (2.2) crashed on boot, and the unstable kernel crashed sometime after boot. I ended up having to install a kernel with custom patches just to get the project going.
The new way of having shorter (get your feature working before the final RC or we pull it) system has been much more stable for me and the thought of ever going back to the old way terrifies me.