Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262991AbVCDTG3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:06:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263004AbVCDTBW (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:01:22 -0500 Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:26079 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262997AbVCDS7I (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:59:08 -0500 Message-ID: <4228B02A.8010202@osdl.org> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:59:54 -0800 From: "Randy.Dunlap" Organization: OSDL User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH CC: Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Andrew Morton , jgarzik@pobox.com, davem@davemloft.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering References: <422751C1.7030607@pobox.com> <20050303181122.GB12103@kroah.com> <20050303151752.00527ae7.akpm@osdl.org> <1109894511.21781.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050303182820.46bd07a5.akpm@osdl.org> <1109933804.26799.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050304032820.7e3cb06c.akpm@osdl.org> <1109940685.26799.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050304183804.GB29857@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20050304183804.GB29857@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1622 Lines: 42 Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:27:37AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >>Btw, I also think that this means that the sucker-tree should never aim to >>be a "2.6.x.y" kind of release tree. If we do a "2.6.x.y" release, the >>sucker tree would be _included_ in that release (and it may indeed be all >>of it - most of the time it probably would be), but we should not assume >>that "2.6.x.y" _has_ to be just the sucker tree. > > > Ah crap, I just called the first release of such a tree, 2.6.11.1. Darn, I thought that we were converging to that also.... unless we can get back to -pre and -rc naming. > >>We might want to release a "2.6.x.y" that contains a patch that is too big >>or too intrusive (or otherwise controversial) to really be valid in the >>sucker-tree. > > > Are you sure we would ever do that? We never have before... > > I think we should call it the 2.6.x.y tree, as that way users can easily > understand it. They see it and say, "Ah look, it's 2.6.x with only > real bugfixes in it." It's very simple to explain to others. > > And if you disagree, what _should_ we call it? "-sucker" isn't good, as > it only describes the people creating the tree, not any of the users :) -fixup or -fixes maybe. x.y is OK too. :) Can/will/should it also include *required* (showstopper) build fixes, if there are any of those? -- ~Randy - 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/