[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Release Policy [was: Linux 2.4.16 ]

    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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.045 / U:45.628 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site