Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262961AbVCEKOB (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Mar 2005 05:14:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263004AbVCEKOB (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Mar 2005 05:14:01 -0500 Received: from [64.167.48.9] ([64.167.48.9]:48658 "EHLO mail.bigsurwireless.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262961AbVCEKN4 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Mar 2005 05:13:56 -0500 From: John Alvord To: Rene Herman Cc: Jeff Garzik , Linus Torvalds , "David S. Miller" , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 02:13:53 -0800 Message-ID: References: <42264F6C.8030508@pobox.com> <20050302162312.06e22e70.akpm@osdl.org> <42265A6F.8030609@pobox.com> <20050302165830.0a74b85c.davem@davemloft.net> <422674A4.9080209@pobox.com> <4226DD45.1070107@keyaccess.nl> <4226E033.4020508@pobox.com> <42270FD9.1020505@keyaccess.nl> In-Reply-To: <42270FD9.1020505@keyaccess.nl> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2695 Lines: 68 On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:23:37 +0100, Rene Herman wrote: >Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> Rene Herman wrote: >> >>> Doing -pre and real -rc will get you more testers for -rc. Whether or >> >>> Add in the fourth level .k releases for real problematic bugs found >>> after release as you did with 2.6.8.1, and I believe things should work. >> >> Precisely. > >I assume that one of the main problems with doing -pre is that actually >doing a real -rc isn't much fun -- I can certainly understand that >sitting around twiddling your thumbs by decree every few weeks is not a >good model. > >You commented on the .k 4th level releases being an actual branch, BK >wise. To not let the forced thumb-twiddling -rc period be a problem, >this branch could happen at -rc1, after which Linus is again free to go >merge up stuff into mainline for the next one, if he wants to. > >That's to say, I propose Linus doesn't change _anything_ other than >renaming his -rc's -pre's, and his final -rc1 (well, and making it a >branch if -final isn't a branch now, sorry, not a clue). > >The -rc branch then just sits there, and if nothing turns up that needs >an -rc2, it gets released as final, and possibly onto .1, .2 and so on >if useful or need be. > >Now, coaching that -rc branch from -rc1 through maybe -rcN to -final and >possibly beyond may not be something Linus wants to do. The -rc branch >would by definition see _no_ activity other than the really needed so I >don't believe it would be much of a burden time-wise, but it is in fact >not unlike what Alan is already doing with -ac. So, if Linus doesn't >want that job, Alan may? Or someone else? > >Summarising: > >- Linus: > > 1) rename 2.6.N-rcX to 2.6.N-preX > 2) when you'd now release, branch off, release as -rc1 > 3) go on with 2.6.(N+1)-pre1 > >- Linus, Alan, or whoever else wants the job: > > 1) release -rc{2,3,...} only if needed. > 2) release 2.6.N > 3) do a 2.6.N.{1,2,...} only if needed. > >Is this sane? The advantage is, real -pre's and -rc's which will get >more people onboard testing -rc, and hopefully without annoying Linus >with real no-changing -rc's. How many more, enough or not, remains to be > seen but certainly more. One way to handle the transition into bug-fix only would be to turn the tree over to the $stability crew at that moment. They would have the job of nursing it to stability under the given ground rules. john alvord - 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/