Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

[Andrew Morton]

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 21:30 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > You cannot have it both ways.  Either the kernel needs testers, or it is
> > "stable".  See how these are opposites?
> 
> I don't see a contradiction.

There is a *direct* contradition, but it's not important.

> I don't see that the releases are stable. They are defined stable by
> proclamation. 

If they were stable we'd release the darn things!  *obviously* -rc kernels
are expected to still have problems.

-rc just means "please start testing", not "deploy me on your corporate
database server".

People are smart enough to know that -rc3 will be less buggy than -rc1.

And if they're worried about bugs then why are they running -rc's at all?

> This 2.6.x.y tree will change nothing as long as the underlying problem
> is not solved.

What underlying problem?  The fact that -rc1 comes a bit too early?  Spare
me, that's just a nothing.  Anyone who is testing -rc kernels knows the
score.

That being said, yes, I agree that we should use 2.4-style -pre and -rc. 
But changing the names of things won't change anything.

> > It won't help that at all.  None of these proposals will increase testing
> > of tip-of-tree.  In fact the 2.6.x proposal may decrease that level of
> > that testing, although probably not much.
> > There is no complete answer to all of this, because there are competing
> > needs.  It's a question of balance.
> 
> A clearly defined switch from -preX to -rc will give the avarage user a
> clear sign where he might jump in and test. 

The average user has learnt "rc1 == pre1".  I don't expect that it matters
much at all.
-
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/