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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans