Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:34:56 +0100 (CET)
From: Sven-Haegar Koch <haegar@sdinet.de>
To: Massimo Cetra <mcetra@navynet.it>
Cc: "'Linus Torvalds'" <torvalds@osdl.org>,
       "'Kernel Mailing List'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Kernel release numbering
In-Reply-To: <20050303010615.3C7F184008@server1.navynet.it>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0503030222520.11715@mercury.sdinet.de>
References: <20050303010615.3C7F184008@server1.navynet.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1427
Lines: 40

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Massimo Cetra wrote:

> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> Namely that we could adopt the even/odd numbering scheme that
>> we used to do on a minor number basis, and instead of
>> dropping it entirely like we did, we could have just moved it
>> to the release number, as an indication of what was the
>> intent of the release.
>
>> Comments?
>
> This is surely a good idea because end users (not developers) like me would
> have greater possibility not to occur in a regression with an even release.

What I would like to see as an enduser is (dreaming):
 	kernel 2.6.x - last released

 	often released (every 1-2 weeks) kernel 2.6.x.z
 	containing just the answers to the often repeating
 	lkml questions which are answered with "use $this simple patch"

 	kernel 2.6.y-pre/rc/bk - development, working towards 2.6.y

in practice your proposed 2.6.even changes, but these continued until the 
next kernel is released, not stopped after 1-2 weeks with the worst fixes.
(a bit like the -as series, but with the "official blessing")

c'ya
sven

-- 

The Internet treats censorship as a routing problem, and routes around it.
(John Gilmore on http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/)
-
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/