[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 Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:43:23 +0100, Sven Vermeulen
<> wrote:

>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).

The bug-fixes only would have to be tightly defined. All of
2.4.0-2.4.15 were bug-fixes in some sense...


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    [from the cache]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site