| Date | Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:21:24 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering |
| |
David S. Miller wrote: > On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:29:35 -0500 > Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote: > > >>If the time between big merges increases, as with this proposal, then >>the distance between local dev trees and linux-2.6 increases. >> >>With that distance, breakages like the 64-bit resource struct stuff >>become more painful. >> >>I like my own "ongoing dev tree, ongoing stable tree" proposal a lot >>better. But then, I'm biased :) > > > The problem is people don't test until 2.6.whatever-final goes out. > Nothing will change that. > > And the day Linus releases we always get a pile of "missing MODULE_EXPORT()" > type bug reports that are one liner fixes. Those fixes will not be seen by > users until the next 2.6.x rev comes out and right now that takes months > which is rediculious for such simple fixes. > > We're talking about a one week "calming" period to collect the brown paper > bag fixes for a 2.6.${even} release, that's all.
If we want a calming period, we need to do development like 2.4.x is done today. It's sane, understandable and it works.
2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features 2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only
> All this "I have to hold onto my backlog longer, WAHHH!" arguments are bogus > IMHO. We're using a week of quiescence to fix the tree for users so they > are happy whilst we work on the 2.6.${odd} interesting stuff :-)
If you think it will be only a week, you're deluding yourself. It will stretch out to a month or longer, and the backlog problems will be real.
A calming period is fine. But this even/odd mess is just silly.
Jeff
- 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/
|