On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:11:46PM +0100, Paul Rolland wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > I'm not saying it should, but it would be good from a PR
> > perspective and as
> > an element in the reliability feeling vector ;-)
> Not sure about it... People like it when a product looks stable,
> and having a -blah or -pre and so on once a week doesn't make
> me feel I have some stable product...
But that's only because the kernel is in public development, it's not a
black box (which is a Good Thing (tm)). You shouldn't need to run a -pre
kernel release in 99% of all cases, so having them available shouldn't
detract from a feeling of stability (regardless of how often they come)
> > The number of -pre releases shouldn't be limited for its own sake, but
> > rather in the process of stabilising the kernel for release.
> > So I mean after
> > a couple of -pre releases start focussing on debugging and
> > then finish with
> > a few -rc's before the next cycle starts. That way the diffs
> > between full
> > versions are smaller and upgrading gets easier.
> So, the question is to choose between :
> - less releases with more changes
> or
> - more relaseases with less changes
>
> Is that correct ?
I guess so.
There's probably not a "right" way to choose between the two, but I'd prefer
the latter option.
Cheers
Simon
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:29 EST