Message-ID: <3C03CC6C.DD03CDDE@kegel.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:25:00 -0800
From: Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel Releases
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

> On Monday 26 November 2001 16:45, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > The only way we can get good testing for new kernels is to stop using
> > > -preN prefix in development branch (2.5.x). Just increment that 'x'.
> >
> > That won't change anything except the number on the kernel.  The people
> > who you're trying to turn into bleeding edge testers (those who stay a
> > little behind [bignum]) will continue to ride the curve at the point of
> > their choosing.
> 
> Yes, but they can't tell which 2.5.x is more stable just from version number.
> This way Linus will get better test coverage in 2.5.x.
> 
> Those who need stability can read lkml and figure out which 2.5.x was 
> 'glitchless' :-) or stick with 2.4.x

Agreed.  2.5.x should not use -pre.  Just increment X.  

2.4.x should continue to use -preY.
There's no need for a -rcY as some have suggested.
All we need to do to avoid messes like the 2.4.15 debacle
is to insist that a 2.4.X-preY should not be
released as final 2.4.X until the pre's been out for a week,
and there should never be any changes introduced into a final
that didn't cook for a week as a pre.  Marcello, what say ye?

That should give enough time for everyone to
find bugs and yell.
- Dan
-
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/