Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering
From: Kyle Moffett
Date: Thu Mar 03 2005 - 20:43:52 EST
On Mar 03, 2005, at 14:35, Sean wrote:
Wait a second though, this tree will be branched from the development
mainline. So it will contain many patches that entered with less
testing. What will be the policy for dealing with regressions
relative
to the previous $sucker release caused by huge patches that entered via
the development tree? Is reverting them prohibited because of the
patch
size?
I can see two conflicting desires in this discussion, the desire to
continue
development to avoid patch backlog, and the desire to slow down and
stabilize
to provide a sane release-candidate and release scheme. Could the two
desires somehow be both resolved simultaneously?
Perhaps instead of forking when 2.6.A is released, Linux could fork
earlier,
after the 2.6.A-bk series. After the fork, the main tree would become
the
new 2.6.A+1-bk, and the forked tree would become 2.6.A+1-pre. Then the
final
stabilization and patches could continue while normal kernel development
moves on. The latest kernel could take advantage of patches to the
release
kernel, but would be able to maintain the steady patch stream. The
release
kernel could be managed by the previously mentioned "sucker", and could
go
through a more-stabilizing and better tested Release Candidate series,
and
then maintain post-release bugfixes. When 2.6.A+1-pre is released, then
all upstream development on the forked 2.6.A-post tree would cease.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r
!y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-
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/