| Date | Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:37:23 -0700 | From | Paul Dickson <> | Subject | Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering |
| |
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:21:38 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The reason I put a shorter timeframe on the "all-even" kernel is because I > don't want developers to be too itchy and sitting on stuff for too long if > they did something slightly bigger. In theory, the longer the better > there, but in practice this release numbering is still nothing but a hint > of the _intent_ of the developers - it's still not a guarantee of "we > fixed all bugs", and anybody who expects that (and tries to avoid all odd > release entirely) is just setting himself up for not testing - and thus > bugs. > > Comments?
You still haven't solved the problem of only a small group using the development kernels. Until a "stable" kernel is released, the majority of kernel compilers will avoid any development kernel (even on this mailing list!).
Two suggestions (one or both could be implemented):
How about appointing maintainers for 2.6.N kernels, whose responsibility is apply stability and security patches for 3 months AND until 2.6.N+3 is released. So a series of 2.6.11.M kernels will appear until 2.6.14 and 2.6.11 is at least 3 months old. This would given kernel developers experience with such releases, but without the job being for the life of the developer.
Also, add a list to the kernel.org web page about which kernels are considered stable. Listed stable kernels are those who have been released for at least two weeks.
-Paul
- 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/
|