Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

[Chris Wright]

* Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> 1) There is no clear, CONSISTENT point where "bugfixes only" begins. 
> Right now, it could be -rc2, -rc3, -rc4... who knows.
> 
> We need to send a clear signal to users "this is when you can really 
> start hammering it."  A signal that does not change from release to 
> release.  A signal that does not require intimate knowledge of the 
> kernel devel process.
> 
> This is a key reason why we don't get more pre-release testing.
> 
> 2) After 2.6.11 release is out, there is no established process for "oh 
> shit, 2.6.11 users will really want that fixed."
> 
> --------------------
> 
> Linus's even/odd proposal is an example of a solution for problem #2, as 
> is my 2.6.X.Y proposal.
> 
> The 2.4.x series -pre/-rc is an example of a solution for problem #1.

This is exactly how I see it as well.  Guess we drank the same koolaid ;-)
I don't see the reluctance to use -pre/-rc since that's already what
we're doing (just poorly encoded in -rc$x).  Also, .x.y does require
some release discipline, there may be cases where the .x.y fix should be
much simpler than .x+1-pre/rc fix (as in Greg's comment that fixes may
include basic API changes).

thanks,
-chris
-
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/