From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: Stable branch releases? Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:10:52 +0200 Message-ID: <49908DCC.1090901@redhat.com> References: <49908368.4010707@us.ibm.com> <49908557.7050504@redhat.com> <49908668.1070909@us.ibm.com> <5d6222a80902091149u3675673dk1619abab6b6580bb@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Anthony Liguori , kvm-devel To: Glauber Costa Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:52970 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754119AbZBIUKb (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2009 15:10:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <5d6222a80902091149u3675673dk1619abab6b6580bb@mail.gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Glauber Costa wrote: > > As we're getting close to kvm-xxx anyway, maybe we could forget this number > scheme, and adopt something that tracks linux. This way, you know exactly what > kernel a released is based on. Something in the lines of kvm-29.1 for updates > to the .29 series, (of course _this_ scheme is bad, because it brings clashes) > It also ignores qemu, which is larger contributor to user visible features... Maybe stable releases should have separate packages for kvm and qemu: kvm-modules-2.6.29.1 and qemu-kvm-0.9.1.17. Users would pick the latest of each, and would only need to upgrade a component that's changed. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.