Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:59:53 +0000 |
| |
On Gwe, 2005-03-04 at 05:34, Andrew Morton wrote: > Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote: > This means that for patches which didn't come through -mm, their first > exposure in a public tree will be when they pop up in our "most stable" > tree. That's backwards.
Its irrelevant. Most of the "must fix" items are security. They don't have a convenient testing life cycle. Many of the others are things that need a prompt fix and the same problem applies.
After all if it was in -mm then someone knew about it and would have said "this has to make base before its released"
> However it should be manageable, as long as linux-release is constrained to > obviously-correct and its-no-more-broken-now-than-it-used-to-be patches.
And occasionally it will be wrong. It happens. Linus released 2.4.15, I've released -ac patches and stuff that needed immediate "oh duh, try the next one" results. The important thing is that there is a base 'stable' release that is almost always stable. That is as good as you'll get.
Alan
- 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/
| |