Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:07:26 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.19 -mm merge plans |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote: > > >>I think the "big merges in the first two weeks, and a -rc1 after, and >>no new code after that" rule has been working because it brought >>everybody in on the same page. >> > >yeah. I dont really support the even/odd release thing because even the >old 1.2/1.3/2.0/2.1/2.2/2.3/2.4 scheme _always_ confused non-insiders. >Sometimes i saw it confuse people who already understood the GPL ;-) >Furthermore it would just dillute our version numbers to encode some >information that "-rc1" indicates just as well. Insiders know perfectly >well that when -rc1 is released the merge window is closed. And what >causes -rc elongation is usually not the lack of communication towards >users or lack of testing but the lack of fixing power ... >
OTOH, if we were worried about confusing people, we wouldn't be using the acronym 'rc' for our 'Ridiculous Count', and have our rc1 denote the result of 2 weeks of stuffing the tree with new features and intrusive changes, where people might mistake that for the much more common RC-as-in-'Release Candidate'. :)
Our -rc is what everyone else knows as -pre, and our dot zeros basically correspond to what people think of as a release candidate. As a developer it doesn't hurt me and I do like the current system, but in principle I just dislike things that are more confusing than they could be.
--
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
| |