Re: The naming wars continue...

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

Nick Piggin wrote:

> Linus I agree it isn't a huge issue. The main thing for me is that
> I could just give a _real_ release candidate more testing - run it
> through some regression tests, make sure it functions OK on all my
> computers, etc. I expect this would be helpful for people with large
> sets of regression tests, and maybe those maintaining 'other'
> architectures too.
> 
> I understand there's always "one more" patch to go in, but now that
> we're doing this stable-development system, I think a week or two
> weeks or even three weeks to stabalize the release with only
> really-real-bugfixes can't be such a bad thing.
> 
> 2.6.x-rc (rc for Ridiculous Count) can then be our development
> releases, and 2.6.x-rc (rc for Release Candidate) are then closer
> to stable releases (in terms of getting patches in).
> 
> Optionally, you could change Ridiculous Count to PRErelease to avoid
> confusion :)
> 
> Other than that I don't have much to complain about... so keep up the
> good work!

I do agree that the pre and rc names gave a strong hint that (-pre) new 
features would be considered or (-rc) it's worth doing more serious 
testing. If Linux doesn't like this any more, perhaps some other way to 
indicate the same thing would be desirable. I admit that the kernel has 
gotten so good that I only try -rc (by whatever name) kernel, I'm not 
waiting for the next big thing. I think that's really good, actually.

-- 
    -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
  last possible moment - but no longer"  -me