[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RFD: Kernel release numbering

> Comments?

the problem is that this doesn't tackle some of the fundamentals...

yes you have a step in between for extra stabilisation. However during
that phase, the buildup of patch backlogs will keep going on, and the
next "unstable" release is all the more so, because of all the enormous
backlogs. Result the stabilisation takes longer. Which means the buildup
next time is even bigger. And that may well be a cycle you can't get out
of. Oh and most people will just start skipping the odd releases as
well. Making this even worse.

An alternative would be to instead of doing the alternating scheme, do
higher frequency releases but with less new features per release. (like
we had in early 2.6 days). Say 3 weeks of devel, 3 weeks of -rc and then
release. Do it time driven so that stuff that gets found to be broken
during -rc gets punted back (to -mm or so) for trying in a later
release. (even when it was added before -rc; if the bug is found before
-rc starts it has a chance for a fix, if it's during -rc it means "back
out for next release"). This sounds harsh but as long as the "next
chance" isn't that far in the future (three weeks at most before it is
back) it shouldn't be a big deal.

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:0.510 / U:1.436 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site