Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:24:39 +0100 | Subject | Re: 2.4.x release process comments | From | Simon Oosthoek <> |
| |
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.
Cheers
Simon - 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/
| |