Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261415AbVCCC3s (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2005 21:29:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261416AbVCCC0m (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2005 21:26:42 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:19663 "EHLO parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261415AbVCCCWF (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2005 21:22:05 -0500 Message-ID: <422674A4.9080209@pobox.com> Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:21:24 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040922 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" CC: akpm@osdl.org, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering References: <42264F6C.8030508@pobox.com> <20050302162312.06e22e70.akpm@osdl.org> <42265A6F.8030609@pobox.com> <20050302165830.0a74b85c.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20050302165830.0a74b85c.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1839 Lines: 50 David S. Miller wrote: > On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:29:35 -0500 > Jeff Garzik wrote: > > >>If the time between big merges increases, as with this proposal, then >>the distance between local dev trees and linux-2.6 increases. >> >>With that distance, breakages like the 64-bit resource struct stuff >>become more painful. >> >>I like my own "ongoing dev tree, ongoing stable tree" proposal a lot >>better. But then, I'm biased :) > > > The problem is people don't test until 2.6.whatever-final goes out. > Nothing will change that. > > And the day Linus releases we always get a pile of "missing MODULE_EXPORT()" > type bug reports that are one liner fixes. Those fixes will not be seen by > users until the next 2.6.x rev comes out and right now that takes months > which is rediculious for such simple fixes. > > We're talking about a one week "calming" period to collect the brown paper > bag fixes for a 2.6.${even} release, that's all. If we want a calming period, we need to do development like 2.4.x is done today. It's sane, understandable and it works. 2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features 2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only > All this "I have to hold onto my backlog longer, WAHHH!" arguments are bogus > IMHO. We're using a week of quiescence to fix the tree for users so they > are happy whilst we work on the 2.6.${odd} interesting stuff :-) If you think it will be only a week, you're deluding yourself. It will stretch out to a month or longer, and the backlog problems will be real. A calming period is fine. But this even/odd mess is just silly. Jeff - 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/