Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Some thoughts about stable kernel development | From | Krzysztof Halasa <> | Date | 13 Nov 2003 20:55:37 +0100 |
| |
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/
| |