![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > 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. Agreed. I stick with the -rc naming convention for 2.4+... - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18 [W:0.400 / U:0.260 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||