Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:28:48 -0800 | From | Mike Fedyk <> | Subject | Re: Please tag tested releases of the 2.4.x kernel |
| |
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 05:04:51PM -0500, Justin Wells wrote: > > It would be great if on kernel.org there were a note indicating which > releases of the linux kernel had been favourably received. > > If you could organize a bit you could even mark a release as "TESTED", > or even "APPROVED". All it would mean is that after it had been out for > a week or two nobody found any really serious problems. >
Are you volunteering to keep up on which kernels had what erratas?
> "Really serious" would be something like it corrupts the filesystem, or > crashes a lot, or fails to build, or introduces a remote root exploit. > Releases like 2.4.14 (fails to build loopback) and 2.4.15 (corrupts) > would not be tagged as "APPROVED". > > Also "APPROVED" or "TESTED" doesn't mean there are no issues or problems, > just that they're the usual kind of issues and problems, rather than > really serious issues. > > I expect there to be quite a bit of human judgement involved in applying > the label. I'm not looking for a rigorous criteria--just the general > feeling of the community a week or two after the release was posted. >
The problem is that this is much like documentation. It (should|needs to) be done, but usually it'll be started, and then abandoned.
Something like LWN (Linux Weekly News) might be a good place for this. Since you probably wouldn't want to know daily if you're going to be a few versions behind.
mf - 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/
| |