[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 Tuesday 27 November 2001 09:02, Svein Erik Brostigen wrote:
> What really scares me is not so much the way the kernels are numbered as
> the way features gets added to
> the kernels.
> Internally in Oracle we do not add new features to a release number,
> just bug-fixes.
> Hence 2.4.0 is the base release of the 2.4.x kernel series. the minor
> x-number should just indicate a bug-fix
> release. Thus, no new features should get added to the 2.4 kernel with
> this numbering schema.
> If you really want to add features into the 2.4.x kernel, you also need
> to extend the numbering schema.
> I.e 2.4.0.x wil then be the bug-fix releases and 2.4.1.x will have new
> features.
> This makes it easier to maintain and to understand what is happening
> between the various releases.
> As far as I can understand, today, new features are added to a released
> kernel without any sensible numbering scheme
> identifying this fact. I don't know if a 2.4.10 kernel contains the same
> features as 2.4.16 with the only difference beeing bug-fixes
> or if there have been added new features. By using a numbering scheme
> that is consistent across both development and
> production kernels, it is easier to identify the features in a kernel.
The problem is that for kernels new features _are_ bug-fixes. Like the new
vm, work-around for discovered bugs in hardware, etc., etc.
I an way what should't be done in a -rc release is new fixing features, but
only the fixing _of_ features. ;-)

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:2.909 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site