Messages in this thread | | | From | Allan Sandfeld <> | Subject | Re: Release Policy [was: Linux 2.4.16 ] | Date | Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:28:50 +0100 |
| |
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 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/
| |