[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: (Short?) merge window reminder
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:

> On 23.05.2011 13:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <> wrote:
>>> I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
>>> cutting 3.0.0! :-)
>> So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
>> not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
>> the fourth one.
> What about strictly 3 part versions? Just add a .0.
> 3.0.0 - Release Kernel 3.0
> 3.0.1 - Stable 1
> 3.0.2 - Stable 2
> 3.1.0 - Release Kernel 3.1
> 3.1.1 - Stable 1
> ...
> Biggest problem is likely version phobics that get pimples when they see
> trailing zeros. ;-)

since there are always issues discovered with a new kernel is released
(which is why the -stable kernels exist), being wary of .0 kernels is not
neccessarily a bad thing.

I still think a date based approach would be the best.

since people are worried about not knowing when a final release will
happen, base the date on when the merge window opened or closed (always
known at the time of the first -rc kernel)

in the thread on lwn, people pointed out that the latest 2.6.32 kernel
would still be a 2009.12.X which doesn't reflect the fact that it was
released this month. My suggestion for that is to make the X be the number
of months (or years.months if you don't like large month values) between
the merge window and the release of the -stable release. This would lead
to a small problem when there are multiple -stable releases in a month,
but since that doesn't last very long I don't see a real problem with just
incramenting the month into the future in those cases.

David Lang

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-24 20:59    [W:0.232 / U:4.752 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site