On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Marco Colombo <marco@esi.it> said:
>
> [...]
>
> > I'm just proposing to shorten the devel cycle not by simply reducing
> > the time between the first releaase of 2.5.0 and the final of 2.6.0,
> > which may be a bad thing, but just letting it overlap with the previuos
> > cycle of 2.3 - 2.4. Numbers means nothing in this context, but let's see
> > an example. Given a devel cycle on 12 months, we have now a stable release
> > every year, roughly this way:
> > 3 months of wild changes/core rewriting - 3 months of porting the rest
> > of the kernel to the new API - 3 months making it stable - RELEASE
> > 3 months of fixes - SPAWN of new devel.
Stop here. You are missing the point - correct mapping is
-CURRENT x.2y+1.latest
-RELEASE point of divergence between x.2y an x.2y+1
-STABLE x.2y.latest
-RC x.2y.early
-BETA x.2y-pre and x.2y.very_early
It _is_ isomorphic to *BSD version trees, except that here declaring
x.2y-pre seems to be the only way to say "It IS freeze, DAMNIT!" that
really sinks in...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 15 2000 - 21:00:18 EST