Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:59:54 -0800 | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering |
| |
Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:27:37AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >>Btw, I also think that this means that the sucker-tree should never aim to >>be a "2.6.x.y" kind of release tree. If we do a "2.6.x.y" release, the >>sucker tree would be _included_ in that release (and it may indeed be all >>of it - most of the time it probably would be), but we should not assume >>that "2.6.x.y" _has_ to be just the sucker tree. > > > Ah crap, I just called the first release of such a tree, 2.6.11.1.
Darn, I thought that we were converging to that also.... unless we can get back to -pre and -rc naming.
> >>We might want to release a "2.6.x.y" that contains a patch that is too big >>or too intrusive (or otherwise controversial) to really be valid in the >>sucker-tree. > > > Are you sure we would ever do that? We never have before... > > I think we should call it the 2.6.x.y tree, as that way users can easily > understand it. They see it and say, "Ah look, it's 2.6.x with only > real bugfixes in it." It's very simple to explain to others. > > And if you disagree, what _should_ we call it? "-sucker" isn't good, as > it only describes the people creating the tree, not any of the users :)
-fixup or -fixes maybe. x.y is OK too. :)
Can/will/should it also include *required* (showstopper) build fixes, if there are any of those?
-- ~Randy - 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/
| |