[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:0.224 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site