Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 Nov 2001 13:45:08 -0800 | From | Zack Weinberg <> | Subject | Re: linux-2.2.20a and gcc 3.0 ? |
| |
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 10:03:21PM +0100, Stefan Smietanowski wrote: > Hi! > > > >>I know how it's done, it's just that in my eyes a stable release is the > >>one where you know there's only 1 .... A 2.95.4 package built on > >>different days (from CVS) will differ. A 2.95.4 package built on > >>different ways from a .tar.gz marked as 'release' will not differ. > >> > >>For instance chasing a kernel bug is difficult when 1 person might use 1 > >>version of a compiler and another uses a different version when both > >>says 2.95.4, no matter how miniscule the difference. > >> > > > >Since patches are being applied to the 2.95 branch at a rate of about > >one a month, I think the date stamp in the version number should be > >quite sufficient to avoid any problems along these lines. > > If it's tested and rock stable, why isn't it released?
It would be silly to generate a new 2.95.x point release every time we fix a bug - most of them are minor, affect very few people, and the fixes will get picked up by the distros anyway.
There probably will be a 2.95.4 official release at some point, but again I'm not aware of any current plans.
zw - 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/
| |