[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Release Policy [was: Linux 2.4.16 ]
    On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 04:18:02PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
    > Why not just disguard this sillyness of alphabetic characters in version
    > numbers... Just carry through the same structure used by major/minor:
    > I.e.
    > 2.0.39 < released 2.0.39
    > < first development snapshot of the kernel which will eventually
    > be 2.0.40
    > < second
    > < Nth
    > < first RC
    > < second RC
    > < opps! Development went too long and we had to break feature
    > freeze to add important features.
    > < Trying to stablize again
    > < a few more bugs fixxed
    > 2.0.40 < Looks like got it right!

    Some people may find this more "logical", but imho most will find it
    confusing... It's already difficult to inform someone about the
    (number).(even|odd).(release)-(patch|pre-final) scheme. I'm more into
    -pre: added some features, bugfixes etc...
    -fc : feature-freeze, only bugfixes
    and having some time (f.i. 48h) between the last -fc and the "real" release
    (without having a single addendum to the ChangeLog).

    Just my 2 cents,
    Sven Vermeulen

    Some people have told me they don't think a fat penguin really embodies
    the grace of Linux, which just tells me they have never seen a angry
    penguin charging at them in excess of 100mph. They'd be a lot more
    careful about what they say if they had. ~(Linus Torvalds)

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.022 / U:3.132 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site