Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

[Jeff Garzik]

Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 18:08 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>
> > This only attacks part of the problem.
>
>
> It still does not solve the problem of "untested" releases. Users will
> still ignore the linus-tree-rcX kernels. 
>
> So we move the real -rcX phase after the so called stable release. 
>
> Doing -rcX from the "sucker" tree up to a stable release makes much more
> sense and would have more testers and get back lost confidence.


Nod.  I really don't think the key penguins understand that there is 
even a problem here.  Let me attempt to re-state the problem:


	There is no flag day when "bugfixes only" mode begins.


There are two component to this problem:

1) Release maintainers need to avoid merging non-bugfixes.  Lately, the 
key penguins _have_ been doing their job here.  This manifested in 
2.6.11-rc4, 2.6.11-rc5.

2) This "flag day" when bugfixes-only mode starts needs to be completely 
obvious to _scripts_ and really dumb people.  Posting to LKML "with this 
-rc, I am only taking serious bugfixes" doesn't cut it.  There must be a 
clear, consistent point where testing may begin.


As a result of this problem, people have learned [just re-read this 
thread if you don't believe me] that "-rc" doesn't really mean Release 
Candidate until -rc2 or -rc3 or so.  And as a result of that, people do 
less testing.

	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/