Message-Id: <200503030655.AWY08157@mira-sjc5-e.cisco.com>
Reply-To: <hzhong@cisco.com>
From: "Hua Zhong" <hzhong@cisco.com>
To: "'Linus Torvalds'" <torvalds@osdl.org>,
       "'Jeff Garzik'" <jgarzik@pobox.com>
Cc: "'David S. Miller'" <davem@davemloft.net>, <akpm@osdl.org>,
       <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: RFD: Kernel release numbering
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:55:53 -0800
Organization: Cisco Systems
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503021932530.25732@ppc970.osdl.org>
Thread-Index: AcUfo4+kAcfxmD6aSum8b3HwKxDfuQAAzHwg
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1132
Lines: 23

> And the reason it does _not_ work is that all the people we 
> want testing sure as _hell_ won't be testing -rc versions.

At least they still test "real" releases..

So instead of making sure rc is really "release-candidate", we want to trick
people to test -pre as "real release", soon people will realize it and just
stop testing even real releases. The trick won't last. What other names will
we try then? Seriously, this is silly and the focus is wrong, and will
accomplish nothing but confusing people one more time.

Let's start by making rc really "release-candidate", not something with
last-minute unpredictable random changes. Why should I test rc when I know
the final release will be much different anyway? What is worse is that we
actually _complain_ about the fact that people do not take rc seriously,
while the release management doesn't take it seriously itself.

Hua
-
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/