[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RFD: Kernel release numbering
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:21:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The problem with major development trees like 2.4.x vs 2.5.x was that the
> release cycles were too long, and that people hated the back- and
> forward-porting. That said, it did serve a purpose - people kind of knew
> where they stood, even though we always ended up having to have big
> changes in the stable tree too, just to keep up with a changing landscape.

How about this idea, instead:

At 2.6.12, make two parallel BitKeeper trees:

2.6 and 2.7

Push bugfixes into 2.6.

Push *everything* that's not a bugfix into 2.7.
"bk pull" the 2.6 tree into the 2.7 tree each day when you wake up.

A week later, release from the 2.6 tree, then immediately bk
pull the 2.7 tree into the 2.6 tree.

Release 2.6.13-rc1 at about the same time, and again only take bugfixes
into the 2.6 tree.

In 3-7 weeks, after a few more -rc iterations with just bugfixes,
release 2.6.13.

This should keep the differences between the trees down to something
somewhat... sane, and, hopefully, keep the stable tree stable.

People working on big changes can do them against 2.6.x if they need
stability, and know that if they stay current with each 2.6.x release as
they work, they should have a controllable amount of pain for merges.

My thinking is simply that if you're going to use BitKeeper, you might
as well abuse it for all that it's worth.


Ryan Anderson
sometimes Pug Majere
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:0.665 / U:0.728 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site