[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RFD: Kernel release numbering
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 22:37, 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".
> In contrast, making it a real release, and making it clear that it's a
> release in its own right, might actually get people to use it.

It seems to me that the problem is not the numbering scheme. We _will_
experience the same issues no mater what scheme we use... The way I see
it is that we need a way to tell how much testing a given release has had.
I would suggest an opt outable scheme that records boot (via an email
for instance) and asks for comments after a day or two. With this sort of
method we would _know_ just how much testing is done. We eventually
could start to relate the amount of testing to just how stable the kernel
will be.

Ed Tomlinson
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:0.317 / U:7.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site