Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261601AbVCCNNa (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:13:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261606AbVCCNNa (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:13:30 -0500 Received: from mail.aei.ca ([206.123.6.14]:32221 "EHLO aeimail.aei.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261601AbVCCNNW (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:13:22 -0500 From: Ed Tomlinson Organization: me To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:13:19 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 Cc: Jeff Garzik , "David S. Miller" , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <422674A4.9080209@pobox.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200503030813.20223.tomlins@cam.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1841 Lines: 41 On Wednesday 02 March 2005 22:37, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > 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. > > No. It's insane, and the only reason it works is that 2.4.x is a totally > different animal. Namely it doesn't have the kind of active development AT > ALL any more. It _only_ has the "even" number kind of things, and quite > frankly, even those are a lot less than 2.6.x has. > > > 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. > > 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. It seems to me that the problem is not the numbering scheme. We _will_ experience the same issues no mater what scheme we use... The way I see it is that we need a way to tell how much testing a given release has had. I would suggest an opt outable scheme that records boot (via an email for instance) and asks for comments after a day or two. With this sort of method we would _know_ just how much testing is done. We eventually could start to relate the amount of testing to just how stable the kernel will be. Comments Ed Tomlinson - 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/