Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

[Randy.Dunlap]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:27:37AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Btw, I also think that this means that the sucker-tree should never aim to 
> > be a "2.6.x.y" kind of release tree. If we do a "2.6.x.y" release, the 
> > sucker tree would be _included_ in that release (and it may indeed be all 
> > of it - most of the time it probably would be), but we should not assume 
> > that "2.6.x.y" _has_ to be just the sucker tree.
>
>
> Ah crap, I just called the first release of such a tree, 2.6.11.1.

Darn, I thought that we were converging to that also....
unless we can get back to -pre and -rc naming.

> > We might want to release a "2.6.x.y" that contains a patch that is too big
> > or too intrusive (or otherwise controversial) to really be valid in the
> > sucker-tree.
>
>
> Are you sure we would ever do that?  We never have before...
>
> I think we should call it the 2.6.x.y tree, as that way users can easily
> understand it.  They see it and say, "Ah look, it's 2.6.x with only
> real bugfixes in it."  It's very simple to explain to others.
>
> And if you disagree, what _should_ we call it?  "-sucker" isn't good, as
> it only describes the people creating the tree, not any of the users :)

-fixup or -fixes maybe.  x.y is OK too.  :)

Can/will/should it also include *required* (showstopper) build fixes,
if there are any of those?

--
~Randy
-
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/