lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Some thoughts about stable kernel development
    From
    Date
    Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@stesmi.com> writes:

    > x.y.z+1 pre/rc q does not contain
    > something that x.y.z pre/rc r has is NOT easy. We both know that
    > me and you will have no problem whatsoever with this scheme. So it's
    > not about me and you. I just think it will confuse some people that's
    > all.

    That's correct. It seems I have misunderstood your previous email.

    This scheme aims for less workload on the maintainers (compared to
    different test + stable trees, as with many popular projects) -
    the added bit of complexity at least seems to scale well.

    Users already have to live with 2.5.1 being a little older than 2.4.22.

    testing/* patches are IMHO not for people who may have problems (bigger
    than just a moment of confusion) with such things - they will have much
    more problems reporting a bug should they found one.

    I know this isn't an ideal solution, that's the best I'm currently aware
    of: we'd gain much shorter devel cycle at a really small cost.
    I agree entirely with Alan and his opinion expressed in this thread.
    --
    Krzysztof Halasa, B*FH
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.021 / U:91.612 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site