Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:30:55 -0800 | From | Samuel Flory <> | Subject | Re: Release of 2.4.21 |
| |
John Bradford wrote:
>>>>For critical fixes, release a 2.4.20.1, 2.4.20.2, etc. Don't disrupt >>>>the 2.4.21-pre cycle, that would be less productive than just patching >>>>2.4.20 and rolling a separate release off of that. >>>> >>>> >>>I think the naming is illogical. If there's a bugfix-only release >>>it whould have normal incremental numbers. So if marcelo want's >>>it he should clone a tree of at 2.4.20, apply the essential patches >>>and bump the version number in the normal 2.4 tree to 2.4.22-pre1 >>> >>> >>No point in making things too complex. 2.4.20-post1 is something people can >>easily understand. >> >>I needed that for the ext3 problems which popped up shortly after 2.4.20 was >>released - I was reduced to asking people to download fixes from my web page. >> >>And having a -post stream may allow us to be a bit more adventurous in the >>-pre stream. >> >> > >Why can't we just make all releases smaller and more frequent? > >Why do we need 2.4.x-pre at all, anyway - why can't we just test >things in the -[a-z][a-z] trees, and _start_ with -rc1? > >Why can't we just do bugfixes for 2.4, and speed up 2.5 development? > > >
That would imply some changes could take place in a short cycle. This is not true for things like major ide subsystem updates.
-- There is no such thing as obsolete hardware. Merely hardware that other people don't want. (The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition) Sam Flory <sflory@rackable.com>
- 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/
| |