Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262445AbVCCREO (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:04:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262385AbVCCRDi (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:03:38 -0500 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:7347 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262253AbVCCRAu (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:00:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:00:39 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Greg KH Cc: Linus Torvalds , Jeff Garzik , "David S. Miller" , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering Message-ID: <20050303170037.GA10574@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Jeff Garzik , "David S. Miller" , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <42268749.4010504@pobox.com> <20050302200214.3e4f0015.davem@davemloft.net> <42268F93.6060504@pobox.com> <4226969E.5020101@pobox.com> <20050302205826.523b9144.davem@davemloft.net> <4226C235.1070609@pobox.com> <20050303080459.GA29235@kroah.com> <4226CA7E.4090905@pobox.com> <20050303164353.GE10761@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050303164353.GE10761@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1745 Lines: 37 On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 08:43:53AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 08:23:39AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > So what's the problem with this approach? It would seem to make everybody > > happy: it would reduce my load, it would give people the alternate "2.6.x > > base kernel plus fixes only" parallell track, and it would _not_ have the > > testability issue (because I think a lot of people would be happy to test > > that tree, and if it was always based on the last 2.6.x release, there > > would be no issues. > > > > Anybody? > > Well, I'm one person who has said that this would be a very tough > problem to solve. And hey, I like tough problems, so I'll volunteer to > start this. If I burn out, I'll take the responsibility of finding > someone else to take it over. Ooh, a sucker! Seriously, I think Linus's plan makes a lot of sense, as a scalable way of maintaining a 2.6.x.y release strategy. The other thing which would probably be useful to maintain would be a list of "known regressions" yet to be fixed in 2.6.x.y, and to address the somewhat disturbing assertions that sometimes regressions "light up bugzilla" at distro's like Fedora, but don't get reflected back up to LKML. Maybe we could recruit some other sucker to maintain such a list? It wouldn't be a complete bug list, and it can be discarded every time a new 2.6.x is released, which means it should be more manageable than some previous attempts to maintain LK bug lists. - Ted - 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/