> > > For critical fixes, release a 2.4.20.1, 2.4.20.2, etc. Don't disrupt
> > > the 2.4.21-pre cycle, that would be less productive than just patching
> > > 2.4.20 and rolling a separate release off of that.
> >
> > I think the naming is illogical. If there's a bugfix-only release
> > it whould have normal incremental numbers. So if marcelo want's
> > it he should clone a tree of at 2.4.20, apply the essential patches
> > and bump the version number in the normal 2.4 tree to 2.4.22-pre1
>
> No point in making things too complex. 2.4.20-post1 is something people can
> easily understand.
>
> I needed that for the ext3 problems which popped up shortly after 2.4.20 was
> released - I was reduced to asking people to download fixes from my web page.
>
> And having a -post stream may allow us to be a bit more adventurous in the
> -pre stream.
Why can't we just make all releases smaller and more frequent?
Why do we need 2.4.x-pre at all, anyway - why can't we just test
things in the -[a-z][a-z] trees, and _start_ with -rc1?
Why can't we just do bugfixes for 2.4, and speed up 2.5 development?
John.
-
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 Mar 23 2003 - 22:00:33 EST