![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread
|
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Massimo Cetra wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote:>>> Namely that we could adopt the even/odd numbering scheme that >> we used to do on a minor number basis, and instead of >> dropping it entirely like we did, we could have just moved it >> to the release number, as an indication of what was the >> intent of the release.>>> Comments?>> This is surely a good idea because end users (not developers) like me would > have greater possibility not to occur in a regression with an even release. What I would like to see as an enduser is (dreaming): kernel 2.6.x - last released often released (every 1-2 weeks) kernel 2.6.x.z containing just the answers to the often repeating lkml questions which are answered with "use $this simple patch" kernel 2.6.y-pre/rc/bk - development, working towards 2.6.y in practice your proposed 2.6.even changes, but these continued until the next kernel is released, not stopped after 1-2 weeks with the worst fixes. (a bit like the -as series, but with the "official blessing") c'ya sven -- The Internet treats censorship as a routing problem, and routes around it. (John Gilmore on http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/) - 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 14:10 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||