Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:01:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:01:45 -0500 Received: from tag.witbe.net ([81.88.96.48]:4614 "EHLO tag.witbe.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:01:42 -0500 From: "Paul Rolland" To: "'Simon Oosthoek'" , Subject: Re: 2.4.x release process comments Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:11:46 +0100 Message-ID: <026601c2d8e1$9f2616f0$3f00a8c0@witbe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <20030220125808.GA11694@margo.student.utwente.nl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1058 Lines: 31 Hello, > I'm not saying it should, but it would be good from a PR > perspective and as > an element in the reliability feeling vector ;-) Not sure about it... People like it when a product looks stable, and having a -blah or -pre and so on once a week doesn't make me feel I have some stable product... > The number of -pre releases shouldn't be limited for its own sake, but > rather in the process of stabilising the kernel for release. > So I mean after > a couple of -pre releases start focussing on debugging and > then finish with > a few -rc's before the next cycle starts. That way the diffs > between full > versions are smaller and upgrading gets easier. So, the question is to choose between : - less releases with more changes or - more relaseases with less changes Is that correct ? Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/