![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:25:55 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Alan Cox wrote:> > > > A suggestion from the department of evil ideas: Call even cycles > > development odd ones stabilizing. Nothing gets into an odd one without a > > review and linux-kernel signoff/ack ?> > I don't think that's an evil idea, and in fact we've discussed it before. > I personally like it - right now we tend to have that "interminable series > of -rc<n>" (where <n> is 3..) before release, and I'd almost personally > prefer to just have a rule that is more along the lines of > > - 2.6.<odd> is "the big initial merges with all the obvious fixes to make > it all work" (ie roughly the current -rc2 or perhaps -rc3). > > - 2.6.<even> is "no big merges, just careful fixes" (ie the current "real > release") > > Each would be ~3 weeks, leaving us with effectively the same real release > schedule, just a naming change. > > That said, I think Andrew was of the opinion that it doesn't really _fix_ > anything, and he may well be right. What's the point of the odd release, > if the weekly snapshots after that are supposed to be strictly better than > it anyway? > > So I think I may like it just because it _seems_ to combine the good > features of both the old naming scheme and the current one, but I suspect > Andrew may be right in that it doesn't _really_ change anything, deep > down. > Again, before we can implement anything we should describe what problem we are actually trying to solve here. Jeff: "I want faster release cycles because <no reason given>" Me: "I want less bugs" Anyone else? - 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: 2006-09-21 20:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||