Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Nov 2001 10:31:41 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Release Policy [was: Linux 2.4.16 ] |
| |
David Weinehall wrote:
>> >>Oh, and yes, if you settle on a naming scheme, *please* let me know >>ahead of time so I can update the scripts to track it, rather than >>finding out by having hundreds of complaints in my mailbox... >> > > I for one used the -pre and -pre-final naming for the v2.0.39-series, > and I'll probably use the same naming for the final pre-patch of > v2.0.40, _unless_ there's some sort of agreement on another naming > scheme. I'd be perfectly content with using the -rc naming for the > final instead. The important thing is not the naming itself, but > consistency between the different kernel-trees. >
Consistency is a Very Good Thing[TM] (says the one who tries to teach scripts to understand the naming.) The advantage with the -rc naming is that it avoids the -pre5, -pre6, -pre-final, -pre-final-really, -pre-final-really-i-mean-it-this-time phenomenon when the release candidate wasn't quite worthy, you just go -rc1, -rc2, -rc3. There is no shame in needing more than one release candidate.
-hpa
- 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/
| |