[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RFD: Kernel release numbering
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>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.
> No. It's insane, and the only reason it works is that 2.4.x is a totally
> different animal. Namely it doesn't have the kind of active development AT
> ALL any more. It _only_ has the "even" number kind of things, and quite
> frankly, even those are a lot less than 2.6.x has.
>>2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features
>>2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only
> And the reason it does _not_ work is that all the people we want testing
> sure as _hell_ won't be testing -rc versions.
> That's the whole point here, at least to me. I want to have people test
> things out, but it doesn't matter how many -rc kernels I'd do, it just
> won't happen. It's not a "real release".

People don't test 2.6-rc releases because they know they are not
"release candidate, with only bug fixes" releases, which is how the rest
of the world interprets the phrase.

Making them official releases in the even/odd manner is what neilb
implies. You'll just be diminishing the value of releases. A "real
release" won't be a real release anymore. You're just renaming the -rc
that isn't really an -rc.


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 14:10    [W:0.158 / U:4.916 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site