Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 May 2008 16:37:02 +0200 | From | "Oliver Pinter" <> | Subject | Re: Suggestion About Kernel Releases |
| |
On 5/21/08, Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@netone.net.tr> wrote: > Hi, > > After long discussions about kernel release methodology, an idea has > came to ( Any comments welcomed :-) ) my mind : > > - 2 weeks of merge window for each "rc" releases should remain the same . > - When decided the 2.6.xx-rcx is ready to become 2.6.xx, it should be > 2.6.xx-test1 instead of 2.6.xx > - Chris Wright (or whoever will handle these "testX" maintaining) can > maintain these "testX" releases as like 2.6.x.y maintaining. > - After releasing the "testX" releases, the new kernel release process > should start. > - When Chris decided it is stable enough, it should release as 2.6.xx > (stable). > - Of course, 2.6.x.y releases follows then as usually. > > Please share your opinions. Thanks :-) > > Tarkan > -- > 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/ >
now: linux-2.6.x -> linux-2.6.(x+1)-rcY -> linux-2.6.(x+1) \->2.6.x.y \->2.6.(x+1).y \->2.6.x.(y+1)-rc1->2.6.x.(.y+1) \->2.6.x.(y+1)-rc1->2.6.x.(.y+1)
your idea: linux-2.6.x -> linux-2.6.(x+1)-rcY -> linux-2.6.(x+1) \->2.6.x.y \->2.6.(x+1).y \->2.6.x.(y+1)-test1->2.6.x.(.y+1) \->2.6.x.(y+1)-test1->2.6.(x+1).(.y+1)
only the namig is was other, rc -> test,
-- Thanks, Oliver
| |