To: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@stesmi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Some thoughts about stable kernel development
References: <m3u15de669.fsf@defiant.pm.waw.pl> <3FAE9026.60500@stesmi.com>
	<m3ekwd8w2m.fsf@defiant.pm.waw.pl> <3FB25A28.1070800@stesmi.com>
	<m3oevh7cnu.fsf@defiant.pm.waw.pl> <3FB333B2.2090006@stesmi.com>
From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>
Date: 13 Nov 2003 20:55:37 +0100
In-Reply-To: <3FB333B2.2090006@stesmi.com>
Message-ID: <m3wua411s6.fsf@defiant.pm.waw.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1308
Lines: 25

Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@stesmi.com> writes:

> x.y.z+1 pre/rc q does not contain
> something that x.y.z pre/rc r has is NOT easy. We both know that
> me and you will have no problem whatsoever with this scheme. So it's
> not about me and you. I just think it will confuse some people that's
> all.

That's correct. It seems I have misunderstood your previous email.

This scheme aims for less workload on the maintainers (compared to
different test + stable trees, as with many popular projects) -
the added bit of complexity at least seems to scale well.

Users already have to live with 2.5.1 being a little older than 2.4.22.

testing/* patches are IMHO not for people who may have problems (bigger
than just a moment of confusion) with such things - they will have much
more problems reporting a bug should they found one.

I know this isn't an ideal solution, that's the best I'm currently aware
of: we'd gain much shorter devel cycle at a really small cost.
I agree entirely with Alan and his opinion expressed in this thread.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa, B*FH
-
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/