Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

[Jes Sorensen]

>>>>> "Greg" == Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Greg> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:52:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Users have been clamoring for a stable release branch in any case,
>> as you see from comments about Alan's -ac and an LKML user's -as
>> kernels.

Greg> Sure they've been asking for it, but I think they really don't
Greg> know what it entails.  Look at all of the "non-stable" type
Greg> patches in the -ac and as tree.  There's a lot of stuff in
Greg> there.  It's a slippery slope down when trying to say, "I'm only
Greg> going to accept bug fixes."

Greg> Bug fixes for what?  Kernel api changes that fix bugs?  That's
Greg> pretty big.  Some driver fixes, but not others?  Driver fixes
Greg> that are in the middle of bigger, subsystem reworks as a series
Greg> of patches?  All of this currently happens today in the main
Greg> tree in a semi-cohesive manner.  To try to split it out is a
Greg> very difficult task.

Greg> So, while I like the _idea_ of the 2.6.x.y type releases, having
Greg> those releases contain anything but a handful of patches will
Greg> quickly get quite messy.

Greg,

Wouldn't this actually happen automatically simply by Linus switching
to being a lot more picky about whats accepted into an even release. I
agree that if it becomes too formal it could probably turn into an
unmaintainable mess. However, by simply making it a golden rule, then
developers can just continue pushing their patches and the people
above can just shift things to -mm that aren't deemed suitable for the
even release.

I think this would work quite well.

Cheers,
Jes
-
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/