[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.4.x release process comments
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:11:46PM +0100, Paul Rolland wrote:
> Hello,
> > I'm not saying it should, but it would be good from a PR
> > perspective and as
> > an element in the reliability feeling vector ;-)
> Not sure about it... People like it when a product looks stable,
> and having a -blah or -pre and so on once a week doesn't make
> me feel I have some stable product...

But that's only because the kernel is in public development, it's not a
black box (which is a Good Thing (tm)). You shouldn't need to run a -pre
kernel release in 99% of all cases, so having them available shouldn't
detract from a feeling of stability (regardless of how often they come)

> > The number of -pre releases shouldn't be limited for its own sake, but
> > rather in the process of stabilising the kernel for release.
> > So I mean after
> > a couple of -pre releases start focussing on debugging and
> > then finish with
> > a few -rc's before the next cycle starts. That way the diffs
> > between full
> > versions are smaller and upgrading gets easier.
> So, the question is to choose between :
> - less releases with more changes
> or
> - more relaseases with less changes
> Is that correct ?

I guess so.

There's probably not a "right" way to choose between the two, but I'd prefer
the latter option.


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 13:33    [W:0.038 / U:5.724 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site