Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Jan 2005 04:12:29 +0100 | From | Thomas Graf <> | Subject | Re: starting with 2.7 |
| |
* Theodore Ts'o <20050104002452.GA8045@thunk.org> 2005-01-03 19:24 > On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 06:59:27PM +0000, Russell King wrote: > > It is also the model we used until OLS this year - there was a 2.6 > > release about once a month prior to OLS. Post OLS, it's now once > > every three months or there abouts, which, IMO is far too long. > > I was thinking more about every week or two (ok, two releases in a day > like we used to do in the 2.3 days was probably too freequent :-), but > sure, even going to a once-a-month release cycle would be better than > the current 3 months between 2.6.x releases.
It definitely satifies many of the impatients but it doesn't solve the stability problem. Many bugs do not show up on developer machines until just right after the release (as you pointed out already). rc releases don't work out as expected due to various reasons, i think one of them is that rc releases don't get announced on the newstickers, extra work is required to patch the kernel etc. What about doing a test release just before releasing the final version. I'm not talking about yet another 2 weeks period but rather just 2-3 days and at most 2 bk releases in between. Full tarball must be available to make it as easy as possible. I'm quite sure there are a lot of willing testers simply too lazy to take a shot at every single rc release. If things get really worse and huge fixes are required the final release could be defered in favour of another rc cycle. - 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/
| |