Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261760AbVCCJQu (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 04:16:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261752AbVCCJPM (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 04:15:12 -0500 Received: from orb.pobox.com ([207.8.226.5]:23995 "EHLO orb.pobox.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261728AbVCCJMf (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 04:12:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 01:12:24 -0800 From: "Barry K. Nathan" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jeff Garzik , "David S. Miller" , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering Message-ID: <20050303091224.GB9796@ip68-4-98-123.oc.oc.cox.net> References: <42264F6C.8030508@pobox.com> <20050302162312.06e22e70.akpm@osdl.org> <42265A6F.8030609@pobox.com> <20050302165830.0a74b85c.davem@davemloft.net> <422674A4.9080209@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3209 Lines: 72 On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:37:44PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote: [snip] > > 2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features > > 2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only > > And the reason it does _not_ work is that all the people we want testing > sure as _hell_ won't be testing -rc versions. Maybe that's because you redefined "rc" to mean "ridiculous count"? People would rather test a release candidate than a ridiculous count. ;) > That's the whole point here, at least to me. I want to have people test > things out, but it doesn't matter how many -rc kernels I'd do, it just > won't happen. It's not a "real release". > > In contrast, making it a real release, and making it clear that it's a > release in its own right, might actually get people to use it. > > Might. Maybe. Am I the only person here who doesn't see it as "either/or"? ISTM that "odd/even" and the "2.4 approach" are orthogonal issues. What about something like the following? (It probably needs tweaks but it might be worth considering.) 2.6.odd-alpha1: Equivalent to 2.6.x-rc1. ... 2.6.odd-alphaA: Equivalent to 2.6.x-rcA. (A is a constant. Linus gets to set it, perhaps before relesing alpha1. Perhaps A=1 or A=2 could be tried for the 2.6.13 cycle. Setting it to an arbitrary value should free Linus's brain for other matters.) 2.6.odd-beta1: Equivalent to 2.6.x-rc(A+1). ... 2.6.odd-betaX: Equivalent to the last 2.6.x-rc in the current scheme. 2.6.odd-rc1: Equivalent to 2.6.x *RELEASE* now. ... 2.6.odd: *Identical* to last 2.6.odd-rc. Not a single patch of difference, except for the version number! If you committed anything since 2.6.odd-rcX, then either (a) you need to make a 2.6.odd-rc(X+1), or (b) you committed something that should have waited for the next 2.6.odd. 2.6.even-beta1: Skipping -alpha because we're only going for bugfixes in even, right? (*Please* listen to davej and don't treat drivers differently than core code. If you must include major driver updates, then don't skip -alpha.) ... 2.6.even-rc1: This is when you think you're completely done with 2.6.even and you think it's time to upload the final release. ... 2.6.even: This is the last 2.6.even-rc, with no changes. (Same -rc rules as for 2.6.odd-rc.) (...cycle repeats...) For an approximation of the so-called "2.4 approach", let A=0 and s/beta/pre/g. Perhaps the alpha/beta distinction won't *really* mean anything, but it might have a subliminal effect on everyone. :) Anyway, if the alpha/beta distinction is overengineering, it's easily removed (see the beginning of this paragraph). Whether with alpha/beta or just plain pre, this seems more robust to me than the other suggestions so far. -Barry K. Nathan - 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/