Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

From: Ed Tomlinson (tomlins_at_cam.org)
Date: 03/03/05

  • Next message: Adrian Bunk: "[2.6.11-rc5-mm1 patch] fs/reiser4/: possible cleanups"
    To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
    Date:	Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:13:19 -0500
    
    

    On Wednesday 02 March 2005 22:37, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
    > >
    > > If we want a calming period, we need to do development like 2.4.x is
    > > done today. It's sane, understandable and it works.
    >
    > No. It's insane, and the only reason it works is that 2.4.x is a totally
    > different animal. Namely it doesn't have the kind of active development AT
    > ALL any more. It _only_ has the "even" number kind of things, and quite
    > frankly, even those are a lot less than 2.6.x has.
    >
    > > 2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features
    > > 2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only
    >
    > And the reason it does _not_ work is that all the people we want testing
    > sure as _hell_ won't be testing -rc versions.
    >
    > That's the whole point here, at least to me. I want to have people test
    > things out, but it doesn't matter how many -rc kernels I'd do, it just
    > won't happen. It's not a "real release".
    >
    > In contrast, making it a real release, and making it clear that it's a
    > release in its own right, might actually get people to use it.

    It seems to me that the problem is not the numbering scheme. We _will_
    experience the same issues no mater what scheme we use... The way I see
    it is that we need a way to tell how much testing a given release has had.
    I would suggest an opt outable scheme that records boot (via an email
    for instance) and asks for comments after a day or two. With this sort of
    method we would _know_ just how much testing is done. We eventually
    could start to relate the amount of testing to just how stable the kernel
    will be.

    Comments
    Ed Tomlinson
    -
    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/


  • Next message: Adrian Bunk: "[2.6.11-rc5-mm1 patch] fs/reiser4/: possible cleanups"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Nicks core remove PageReserved broke vmware...
      ... Petr Vandrovec wrote: ... vmmon uses VM_RESERVED on its 'vma' as otherwise some kernels ... The reason is that VM_RESERVED indicates that the core vm is not allowed ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: [PATCH] Checkpoint lists split
      ... > submitted buffers) is not in -mm kernels. ... Is there any reason why you've ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: [PATCH] Checkpoint lists split
      ... > submitted buffers) is not in -mm kernels. ... Is there any reason why you've ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: [PATCH] Adds support for TEA5767 chipset on V4L
      ... > some reason, as you pointed, it had failed for this code... ... is anyone testing the v4l cvs on 2.4 kernels? ... cvs as well and simply drop the 2.4 code ... ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: [PATCH] remove LOCK_SECTION from x86_64 spin_lock asm
      ... Ok, should be easy to fix with the same scheme, except ... BTW the SMP check is also wrong because preemptive kernels also ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)