Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262618AbVCCVyF (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:54:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262608AbVCCVwK (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:52:10 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.58]:55238 "EHLO ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262607AbVCCVmH (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:42:07 -0500 Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering From: Steven Rostedt To: David Lang Cc: Linus Torvalds , Jeff Garzik , Greg KH , "David S. Miller" , akpm@osdl.org, LKML In-Reply-To: References: <42265A6F.8030609@pobox.com> <20050302165830.0a74b85c.davem@davemloft.net> <422674A4.9080209@pobox.com> <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> <422751C1.7030607@pobox.com> <1109883750.591.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Kihon Technologies Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:41:48 -0500 Message-Id: <1109886108.591.58.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2039 Lines: 54 On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 13:24 -0800, David Lang wrote: > I don't think you are understanding the proposal > You're probably right. :-) > 2.6.11.y will be released as 2.6.12 is being developed. > > once 2.6.12 is released (or shortly after that if 2.6.12 ends up being a > _real_ mess) 2.6.11.y will not get any additional releases (2.6.12.y will > get released instead) > > as a result there will be no backports at all. if you want a feature > that's introduced in 2.6.12 then you wait until you get a 2.6.12.y release > that's good enough for you. > I understand the no backports. That's a good thing. That's what I was trying to state (but was probably too long winded!). Lets see if this is what I believe is being proposed. 2.6.x would be the release with some number of features added. 2.6.x.y would include bug fixes only, that are under the strong rule of Linus to only be things that crash/hang the machine or nasty security exploits. 2.6.x+1 would be 2.6.x.(some y) also including features (from -rc or -mm) 2.6.x.z (where z is greater than the above "some y") only include the same level of fixes as with 2.6.x.y, with the parallel work of 2.6.x+1 still going on. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. > also I think the expectation is that there aren't going to be more then > 2-3 2.6.x.y releases so your comment of people waiting until y>5 won't > apply > Say after 2.6.x.3 has been released and 2.6.x+1 is now out, and someone finds a rare race condition that hangs the machine. A 2.6.x.4 would not be released? Actually, the >5 was pretty pointless anyway. What I got from talking to people is that they wanted a release that only got fixes that would crash the machine, or cause a root exploit. That's what I thought Linus was trying to say. -- Steve - 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/