Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

[Jeff Garzik]

David S. Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:29:35 -0500
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > If the time between big merges increases, as with this proposal, then 
> > the distance between local dev trees and linux-2.6 increases.
> >
> > With that distance, breakages like the 64-bit resource struct stuff 
> > become more painful.
> >
> > I like my own "ongoing dev tree, ongoing stable tree" proposal a lot 
> > better.  But then, I'm biased :)
>
>
> The problem is people don't test until 2.6.whatever-final goes out.
> Nothing will change that.
>
> And the day Linus releases we always get a pile of "missing MODULE_EXPORT()"
> type bug reports that are one liner fixes.  Those fixes will not be seen by
> users until the next 2.6.x rev comes out and right now that takes months
> which is rediculious for such simple fixes.
>
> We're talking about a one week "calming" period to collect the brown paper
> bag fixes for a 2.6.${even} release, that's all.

If we want a calming period, we need to do development like 2.4.x is 
done today.  It's sane, understandable and it works.

2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features
2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only


> All this "I have to hold onto my backlog longer, WAHHH!" arguments are bogus
> IMHO.  We're using a week of quiescence to fix the tree for users so they
> are happy whilst we work on the 2.6.${odd} interesting stuff :-)

If you think it will be only a week, you're deluding yourself.  It will 
stretch out to a month or longer, and the backlog problems will be real.

A calming period is fine.  But this even/odd mess is just silly.

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/